ÿWPCa C 0(n 0C– 0=Ù 03 BI B*f B B­ BÊ BçU2 %6Æ< D+ AI-Æv D+< AIgÆ° D+v AI¡ Ðê 1sºU4-(ÿÿ$¡¡(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó(ÿÿ$Ú  ÚÚ  Ú( ÿÿ$Ó  Ó d&ÿÿ0 d dþÿ dýÿ düÿP Pdûÿ   d< Œ p`+‹CourierTT X Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5)ÈÈÈÈdd Aþÿ°°Cÿÿ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5)ÈÈÈÈddA°°Cÿÿ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5)ÈÈÈÈddAüÿ°°Cÿÿ< Œ p`‹CG TimesTTÿ< Œ p`‹CourierTTÿ< Œ p`‹CourierTTÿ< Œ p`‹CG TimesTT$;=CIOU[ckOUTL0I.A.1.a.I.(1)(a)(i)< Œ p`‹CG TimesTTÝ ƒÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÓ ý ÓÓ  ÓÑ „ ÑÑ , ÑÑ „ ÑÑ , ÑÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ5+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ(€  #(ÓØØÔ€XXÔÔ€XXÔÔ€ôôÔÔ€ôôÔÓ  ÓÓ *ÈÓ*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*ÌÌà@ à773892€„€COE,€JACK€JˆÌÌNumber€of€Requests€in€Group:à à€€€€€€€1ÌÌApproximate€Number€of€Lines:à à€€€€3530ÌÌDate€and€Time€Printing€Started:à à09/16/2004à à08:03:20€pm€(Central)ÌÌÓ  Ó(C)€2004.€Copyright€is€not€claimed€as€to€any€part€of€the€original€work€prepared€by€a€U.S.€government€officer€or€employee€as€part€of€that€person's€official€duties.€All€rights€reserved.€No€part€of€a€Westlaw€transmission€may€be€copied,€downloaded,€stored€in€a€retrieval€system,€further€transmitted€or€otherwise€reproduced,€stored,€disseminated,€transferred€or€used,€in€any€form€or€by€any€means,€except€as€permitted€in€the€Westlaw€Subscriber€Agreement,€the€Additional€Terms€Governing€Internet€Access€to€Westlaw€or€by€West's€prior€written€agreement.€Each€reproduction€of€any€part€of€a€Westlaw€transmission€must€contain€notice€of€West's€copyright€as€follows:€"Copr.€(C)€2004€West,€a€Thomson€business.€No€claim€to€orig.€U.S.€govt.€works."€Registered€in€U.S.€Patent€and€Trademark€Office€and€used€herein€under€license:€KeyCite,€Westlaw€and€WIN.€KeyCite€is€a€registered€trademark€of€West€Licensing€Corporation,€used€herein€under€license.€WIN€natural€language€is€protected€by€U.S.€Patent€Nos.€5,265,065,€5,418,948€and€5,488,725.ÌÌÓ  Ó________________________________________________________________________________ÌClient€Identifier:€€JJCOEÌDate€of€Request:€09/16/2004ÌThe€Current€Database€is€VNJTLÌÌ________________________________________________________________________________ÌÌ*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*START*ÌÇò òFOR€EDUCATIONAL€USE€ONLYÌó óÓ†|(,X„°Ü4` Œ ¸ ä <h”ÀìDpœÈô Lx¤Ð ü!(#T$€%¬&Ø')0*\+ˆ,´-†ÓCopr.€ðð€2004€West.€No€Claim€to€Orig.€U.S.€Govt.€Works.ÌÌ36€VNJTL€1381Ì36Vand.J.Transnat'lL.1381Ìò ò(Cite€as:€36€Vand.€J.€Transnat'l€L.€1381)Ìó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓVanderbilt€Journal€of€Transnational€LawÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓOctober,€2003ÌÓ  ÓÌò òÓ  ÓInternational€Commercial€ArbitrationÌÓ  Óó óò òÓ  ÓA€Symposium€Sponsored€by€Vanderbilt€University€Law€and€Business€Program€andÌÓ  Óó óò òÓ  ÓVanderbilt€Journal€of€Transnational€Law,€March€2003ÌÓ  Óó óò òÌó óò òÓ  Ó*1381€TAKING€STOCK€OF€NAFTA€CHAPTER€11€IN€ITS€TENTH€YEAR:€AN€INTERIM€SKETCHÌÓ  Óó óò òÓ  ÓOF€SELECTED€THEMES,€ISSUES,€AND€METHODSÌÓ  Óó óò òÌó óÓ  ÓJack€J.€Coe,€Jr.€[FNa1]ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓCopyright€ðð€2003€Vanderbilt€University€Law€School;€Jack€J.€Coe,€Jr.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓTable€of€ContentsÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€I.Introduction.............................................1384ÌÌII.AnOverviewofNAFTA'sInvestor„StateArbitralÌÌMechanism:SomeBroadThemes..............................1386ÌÌÓ  ÓÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€A.ClaimProcessingArchitecture:APatchworkofOldandÌÌNew.......................................................1386ÌÌ1.InGeneral............................................1386ÌÌ2.SectionB:TheBasicSequenceandDeparturesTherefrom1387ÌÌB.Chapter11Arbitration:AHybrid........................1389ÌÌ1.PublicandPrivateFeatures...........................1389ÌÌ2.RelativeComplexity...................................1391ÌÌ3.IntersectionswithDomesticArbitralRegimes..........1392ÌÌC.ThePreeminenceofJurisdiction„RelatedIssues..........1393ÌÌ1.InGeneral............................................1396ÌÌ2.TermsofArtasJurisdictionalGatekeepers............1394ÌÌD.NAFTAJurisprudence:AccessibilityandImportance.......1397ÌÌIII.DocketCharacteristics.................................1399ÌÌA.SubjectMatter..........................................1399ÌÌB.DisputantPatterns......................................1399ÌÌC.RegimeSelectionsandArbitralSeats....................1400ÌÌD.SettlementandRecoveries...............................1400ÌÌIV.TheProcessesofNAFTAJurisprudence....................1401ÌÌA.TribunalRelationshiptoDomesticCourts................1401ÌÌB.SourcesofSubstantiveGuidance.........................1403ÌÌ1.InGeneral............................................1403ÌÌÓ  ÓÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€2.ConsultationofDomesticSources......................1404ÌÌ3.InternationalAuthorities.............................1405ÌÌa.Adjudication........................................1405ÌÌb.Texts,Commentaries,andPublicists.................1406ÌÌC.ReasoningMethodologiesandTribunalAttitudes..........1407ÌÌD.UnifyingForces.........................................1408ÌÌ1.InGeneral............................................1408ÌÌ2.Inter„TribunalCross„Fertilization....................1409ÌÌ3.DirectandIndirectSubmissionsofNon„DisputantÌÌParties...................................................1409ÌÌ4.BindingInterpretations...............................1410ÌÌ5.Set„AsidePrecedent...................................1411ÌÌV.PopularMisgivings:FactandFable.......................1412ÌÌA.InGeneral..............................................1412ÌÌB.Chapter11as"Unprecedented"...........................1413ÌÌ1.TheLabelsandUnderlyingSensibilities...............1413ÌÌ2.Chapter1414ÌÌ11'sÌÌLineageÌÌC.DirectStandingorEspousal?............................1415ÌÌ1.TheQuestion..........................................1415ÌÌÓ  ÓÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€2.Espousal:StateofNationalityasTraditionalÌÌProtector.................................................1415ÌÌ3.Chapter11andEspousal...............................1417ÌÌD.DirectStandingandExhaustionofLocalRemedies........1418ÌÌ1.ExhaustionInGeneral.................................1418ÌÌ2.Chapter11andExhaustion.............................1419ÌÌ3.Metalclad.............................................1420ÌÌ4.ConsequencesfortheNon„ExhaustingInvestor..........1421ÌÌ5.RethinkingExhaustion:Loewenv.UnitedStates........1422ÌÌ6.TheImpactofDomesticCourtAdjudication.............1424ÌÌ7.ResultingStrategicConsiderations....................1424ÌÌE.GoverningLawIndeterminatenessandOutcomeÌÌUnpredictability..........................................1425ÌÌ1.TheStakes:LegitimacyandEfficiency.................1425ÌÌ2.AdoptingReasonableExpectations,PresentandFuture..1426ÌÌ3.FormalMechanisms:TheRoleofBindingInterpretations1426ÌÌa.InGeneral..........................................1426ÌÌb.TheArticle1105Example............................1427ÌÌc.TheInterpretiveNote...............................1429ÌÌ4.Article1110:UnremarkableorUntidy?.................1430ÌÌa.ApparentDivergence.................................1430ÌÌÓ  ÓÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€b.ASecondLook.......................................1431ÌÌ5.TentativeConclusionsontheQuestionofIndeterminacy1432ÌÌF.LackofProcessTransparency............................1434ÌÌ1.PolicyUnderpinningsandExpectations.................1434ÌÌ2.ComparativeTransparency..............................1434ÌÌG.LackofTribunalAccountability.........................1436ÌÌ1.TheComplaint.........................................1436ÌÌ2.APartialReply.......................................1437ÌÌH.ChillingEffectonBeneficialRegulation................1437ÌÌ1.TheFear..............................................1437ÌÌ2.TheInterimData......................................1438ÌÌI.ThePerceptionofAlienAdvantage.......................1439ÌÌ1.DualSystems..........................................1439ÌÌ2.PotentialConsequencesofthePerception..............1440ÌÌa.BusinessPlanning...................................1440ÌÌb.LegislativeResponses...............................1440ÌÌVI.ControlMechanisms......................................1441ÌÌA.TheExistingControlPatchwork..........................1441ÌÌB.MeagerData.............................................1442ÌÌC.PositiveAttributes.....................................1443ÌÌD.NegativeTraitsandPotentialFlaws.....................1443ÌÌÓ  ÓÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€1.IncursionsintotheMerits............................1443ÌÌ2.SystemicVariations...................................1445ÌÌ3.PerceptionsRegardingNeutrality......................1445ÌÌE.ImprovingControlMechanisms:AbstractCharacteristics..1446ÌÌ1.OverarchingImportanceandAbstractCriteria..........1446ÌÌ2.AnationalityandNeutralComposition..................1446ÌÌ3.SystemicNeutrality...................................1447ÌÌ4.CentralizationandStandardization....................1447ÌÌ5.Predictable,ManifoldExpertise.......................1448ÌÌF.StandardsforSet„Aside.................................1448ÌÌ1.SubstantiveReview....................................1448ÌÌ2.SubstantiveReview:CompetingInterests...............1449ÌÌa.TheInternationalCommercialArbitrationModel......1449ÌÌb.ProlongedIndeterminacy.............................1449ÌÌG.AdvisoryandRemedialPowers............................1449ÌÌH.CompletingICSIDParticipation..........................1450ÌÌI.StandingAppellateBodies...............................1451ÌÌ1.ICJChamber...........................................1451ÌÌ2.ThePCAVariation.....................................1452ÌÌJ.TheMeritsofaStandingFirstInstanceTribunal........1452ÌÌV.Conclusion...............................................1453ÌÌÓ  ÓÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€TABLES......................................................1455ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óò ò*1384ó ó€I.€IntroductionÌÓ  ÓÌ€€The€North€American€Free€Trade€Agreement€(NAFTA)€came€into€force€on€January€1,€1994.€[FN1]€Its€Eleventh€Chapter€establishes€substantive€guarantees€[FN2]€and€an€arbitral€mechanism€by€which€qualifying€investors€may€seek€damages€for€breach€of€those€guarantees.€The€much„discussed€investor„state€arbitration€apparatus€[FN3]€was€first€invoked€in€September€1996,€[FN4]€and€since€then€hasò ò€*1385ó ó€been€resorted€to€several€times€against€each€NAFTA€state.€Many€cases€have€concluded,€while€others€are€nearing€completion.€[FN5]€Though€a€mature€jurisprudence€has€by€no€means€emerged,€substantive€trends€have€been€established€and€several€of€Chapter€11's€distinctive€features,€strengths,€and€weaknesses€have€been€illuminated.ÌÌ€€NAFTA's€investor„state€docket€has€generated€predictably€high€levels€of€interest€among€international€law€scholars€and€practitioners.€It€has€also€sustained€a€remarkable€collection€of€observers€beyond€specialist€circles.€Numerous€critiques€have€issued€from€both€groups,€and€reactions€to€NAFTA€have€prefigured€much€of€the€debate€that€will€ensue€in€relation€to€its€more€ambitious€proposed€successor,€the€Free€Trade€Area€of€the€Americas€(FTAA).€[FN6]€In€assessing€Chapter€11's€dispute€regime,€it€is€difficult€to€fully€divorce€substance€from€procedure.€Accordingly,€while€the€following€interim€appraisal€of€Chapter€11€is€concerned€primarily€with€the€investor„state€arbitration€regime,€that€framework's€impact€on€the€substantive€jurisprudence€of€NAFTA€will€also€be€treated,€albeit€not€comprehensively.ÌÌ€€Part€II€surveys€elements€of€architecture€and€develops€certain€themes.€Part€III€identifies€emerging€docket€patterns.€Part€IV€considers€processes€and€sources€that€influence€the€formation€of€Chapter€11€jurisprudence.€Part€V€discusses€selected€conceptions€and€misgivings€that€have€recurred€concerning€Chapter€11.€Part€VI€considers€the€mechanisms€intended€to€exert€control€on€Chapter€11€awards€and€introduces€proposals€for€refining€the€associated€framework.€In€general,€this€essay€concludes€that€the€existingò ò€*1386ó ó€arrangement€is€neither€fundamentally€flawed€nor€entirely€free€of€troubling€features.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.€An€Overview€of€NAFTA's€Investor„State€Arbitral€Mechanism:€Some€Broad€ThemesÌÓ  ÓÌA.€Claim€Processing€Architecture:€A€Patchwork€of€Old€and€NewÌÌ€€1.€In€GeneralÌÌ€€Section€B€of€Chapter€11€sets€forth€with€specificity€rules€conditioning€an€investor's€resort€to€arbitration,€the€character€and€mandate€of€the€arbitral€tribunals€that€are€to€serve,€and€numerous€related€matters.€[FN7]€It€also€relies€upon€several€generally€well„tested€texts€and€regimes,€including€three€rules€formulae€and€three€arbitral€conventions.€These€texts€perform€their€ordinary€function€subject€to€the€specific€ways€of€proceeding€agreed€by€the€NAFTA€states€and€set€forth€in€Section€B.€Domestic€arbitration€statutes€too€play€a€role,€though€as€a€practical€matter€their€role€is€largely€restricted€to€the€post„award€setting.€[FN8]ÌÌ€€Private€lawsuits€in€one€NAFTA€state€against€other€NAFTA€states€have€been€explicitly€foreclosed€by€NAFTA€and€associated€statutes€of€implementation.€[FN9]€Nevertheless,€some€flexibility€is€afforded€claimants€under€the€arbitral€remedy€to€which€they€are€confined€in€the€form€of€a€choice€of€formats.€Section€B€contemplates€that€in€manyò ò€*1387ó ó€instances€the€aggrieved€investor€may€designate€either€UNCITRAL€Rules€of€arbitration€or€one€of€two€ICSID€[FN10]€formats€[FN11]€(the€type€and€availability€depending€on€the€ICSID€Convention€status€of€the€states€involved).€However,€the€present€range€of€options€is€not€as€diverse€as€one€might€imagine.€Because€neither€Mexico€nor€Canada€is€yet€a€member€of€the€ICSID€Convention,€[FN12]€only€the€alternative€of€ICSID's€Additional€Facility€has€been€available€and€then€only€in€the€common€circumstance€in€which€the€United€States€is€either€the€claimant's€state€of€nationality€or€is€the€respondent.€[FN13]ÌÌ€€2.€Section€B:€The€Basic€Sequence€and€Departures€TherefromÌÌ€€The€procedures€detailed€in€Section€B€of€Chapter€11,€though€somewhat€intricate,€contemplate€a€scenario€in€which€notice€and€cooling„off€periods€induce€more€deliberate€claims€than€might€otherwise€occur.€An€uncontroversial€marshaling€of€a€claim€would€unfold€as€follows:€upon€ascertaining€that€an€apparent€breach€of€Chapter€11€by€its€NAFTA€Party€host€had€injured€its€investment,€the€investor€(a€national€of€another€NAFTA€state)€would€pursue€redress€through€consultation€with€host€state€officials€[FN14]€and,€upon€the€failureò ò€*1388ó ó€of€such€efforts,€would€notify€the€host€state€of€its€intention€to€bring€a€Chapter€11€claim€(Notice€of€Intent€or€Notice).€[FN15]€The€notice€would€contain€specified€information€(including€the€provisions€alleged€to€have€been€breached€and€the€factual€basis€for€the€claim).€[FN16]€Thereafter,€the€arbitral€claim€could€be€filed,€subject€to€three€timing€restraints.€First,€it€would€be€submitted€not€sooner€than€90€days€from€the€date€upon€which€the€notice€of€intent€[FN17]€was€delivered€and,€second,€not€sooner€than€six€months€after€the€occurrences€prompting€the€claim.€[FN18]€Third,€irrespective€of€when€the€notice€was€given,€the€claim€would€not€be€filed€later€than€3€years€from€the€date€when€the€investor€should€have€discovered€the€breach€and€injury.€[FN19]ÌÌ€€The€claim€would€be€filed€in€the€manner€set€forth€in€the€arbitral€rules€corresponding€to€the€investor's€choice€of€format€(UNCITRAL€or€the€applicable€ICSID€regime),€[FN20]€and€would€be€accompanied€by€a€written€waiver€and€consent€to€arbitration.€[FN21]€The€waiver€would€relinquish€the€investor's€right€"to€initiate€or€continue"€certain€domestic€proceedings€"with€respect€to€the€measure€.€.€.€alleged€to€be€a€breach€of€[Chapter€11]."€[FN22]ÌÌ€€Despite€the€prosaic€nature€of€the€foregoing€claim€marshalling€procedure,€jurisdiction„related€skirmishes€have€become€commonplace,€in€part€because€claimants€have€deviated€from€the€prescribed€ordering€and€content€set€forth€above.€What€should€be€the€consequence€of€premature€initiation€of€the€process?€[FN23]€Is€the€waiver€an€element€of€jurisdiction€or€largely€a€formality?€[FN24]€These€and€numerous€other€questions€of€this€type€have€regularly€occupied€tribunals€as€preliminary€matters,€a€characteristic€of€Chapter€11€arbitration€more€fully€discussed€under€Subsection€C€below.ÌÌò ò*1389ó ó€B.€Chapter€11€Arbitration:€A€HybridÌÌ€€1.€Public€and€Private€FeaturesÌÌ€€Arbitration€between€states€and€private€parties„„"mixed"€arbitration„„of€the€kind€sponsored€by€Chapter€11€has€characteristics€of€inter„state€arbitration€[FN25]€and€of€private€international€commercial€arbitration.€[FN26]€The€similarities€to€the€latter€are€readily€apparent.€Once€underway,€Chapter€11€arbitration€follows€the€familiar€pattern,€ordinarily€progressing€through€written€and€oral€phases€culminating€in€deliberations€and€the€issuance€of€a€written,€reasoned€award.€Typically,€three„arbitrator€tribunals€are€formed€by€each€party€appointing€one€arbitrator;€the€disputants€themselves€(and€not€the€party„appointed€arbitrators)€collaborate€to€designate€the€presiding€arbitrator.€[FN27]€All€arbitrators€are€expected€to€be€independent.ÌÌ€€As€in€standard€contract„based€arbitration,€the€tribunal€enjoys€wide€discretion€in€the€pursuit,€admission,€and€weighing€of€evidence€as€well€as€appreciable€latitude€in€the€conduct€of€the€proceedings€in€general.€[FN28]€In€at€least€one€critical€respect,€Chapter€11€arbitrators€have€been€called€upon€to€exercise€their€discretion€with€greater€regularity€than€occurs€in€private€international€arbitration„„in€designating€the€place€of€arbitration€("place"€in€the€juridical€sense€of€arbitral€seat).€At€present,€like€its€private€cousin,€Chapter€11,€arbitration€attributes€to€the€seat€jurisdictional€and€applicable€law€consequences,€particularly€if€an€award€is€attacked.€[FN29]€No€meaningful€pre„dispute€opportunity€typically€arises€for€the€disputants€to€fix€the€details€of€a€future€Chapter€11€arbitration;€nor€would€there€be€much€incentive€to€pursue€one€given€that€neither€side€expects€to€arbitrate.€After€dispute€arises,€of€course,€and€the€claim€has€been€filed,€the€disputants€do€not€readily€agree€on€the€place€of€arbitration€for€obvious€reasons.€Accordingly,€tribunals,€almost€always,€have€designated€the€place.€[FN30]ÌÌò ò€€*1390ó ó€Chapter€11's€variations€from€its€private€counterpart€arise€because€one€disputant€is€always€a€state€[FN31]€and€because€of€system€features€designed€to€both€confer€limited€private€standing€for€obligations€ordinarily€subsisting€only€on€the€international€plane€[FN32]€and€to€anticipate€the€resulting€train€of€mixed€arbitrations.€Among€Section€B's€defining€characteristics€are€the€sources€consulted€for€rules€of€decision€(the€treaty€text€and€rules€of€public€international€law)€[FN33]€and€the€associated€jurisprudential€methods.€[FN34]ÌÌò ò€€*1391ó ó€More€distinctive€than€the€applicable€law€is€the€role€played€by€non„disputant€stake„holders€in€identifying€the€content€of€the€obligations€in€question.€In€particular,€the€treaty€text„„a€tribunal's€first€stop€in€identifying€controlling€principles„„is€subject€to€formal€interpretations€issued€jointly€by€the€parties€(as€more€fully€discussed€below)€[FN35]€and€to€the€influence€the€two€non„disputant€NAFTA€states€may€exert€individually€through€their€Article€1128€submissions.€[FN36]€On€occasion,€though€not€expressly€contemplated€in€the€NAFTA,€amici€have€also€been€allowed€to€contribute€views.€[FN37]ÌÌ€€2.€Relative€ComplexityÌÌ€€Compared€to€investment€treaties€in€general,€Chapter€11€is€relatively€complex.€A€crude€but€descriptive€portrayal€of€Chapter€11€is€that€it€is€a€bilateral€investment€treaty€(BIT)€inserted€into€a€multi„lateral€free€trade€agreement.€While€Chapter€11's€similarity€to€recent€U.S.€and€Mexican€BITs€is€apparent,€it€is€more€involved€than€most€bilateral€instruments.€Its€embedding€in€a€multi„chapter€text€that€addresses€a€range€of€activities€in€addition€to€investment€engendersò ò€*1392ó ó€questions€of€coverage€and€hierarchy€and€broadens€the€context€in€which€Chapter€11's€proper€meaning€is€to€be€deduced.€For€the€conditions€under€which€a€tax€measure€might€be€compensable,€for€example,€one€looks€also€to€Chapter€21.€[FN38]€The€acts€of€monopolies€and€state€enterprises€might€be€actionable€under€Chapter€11,€but€only€under€parameters€outlined€in€Chapter€15.€[FN39]€And€the€application€of€most€of€Chapter€11's€central€guarantees€is€qualified€by€exemptions€and€reservations€detailed€in€several€Annexes€and€associated€schedules.€[FN40]ÌÌ€€3.€Intersections€with€Domestic€Arbitral€RegimesÌÌ€€The€interplay€between€Section€B€and€domestic€arbitral€regimes€has€occasionally€produced€interesting€questions,€many€not€purely€academic.€In€Metalclad,€[FN41]€for€instance,€when€the€award€was€attacked,€[FN42]€two€potentially€applicable€arbitration€statutes€competed€for€application;€the€outcome€depended€upon€whether€Chapter€11€awards€are€"commercial"€within€the€meaning€of€British€Columbia's€International€Commercial€Arbitration€Act€(ICA).€Justice€Tysoe€ruled€that€they€are€and€thus€fall€under€the€ICA,€an€important€determination€since€the€default€was€to€a€statute€that€(unlike€the€ICA)€allowed€review€for€errors€of€law.€[FN43]ÌÌò ò€€*1393ó ó€Institutional€policies€and€statutory€prerogatives€may€also€come€into€tension,€as€illustrated€again€by€the€Metalclad€litigation.€The€trial€court€authorized€remission€of€the€award.€Chapter€11€does€not€address€remission.€The€ICSID€Additional€Facility€Rules€contemplate€limited€post„award€resort€to€the€tribunal€but€similarly€do€not€speak€directly€to€remission.€ICSID's€Secretariat€questioned€whether€remission€would€be€proper.€[FN44]€The€ICA,€however,€gives€the€court€the€option€to€remit,€rather€than€vacate.€[FN45]€Because€the€parties€settled€before€the€question€of€remission€could€be€fully€considered€by€ICSID€and€the€British€Columbia€trial€court,€the€role€of€remission€remains€subject€to€speculation.€[FN46]ÌÌC.€The€Preeminence€of€Jurisdiction„Related€IssuesÌÌ€€1.€In€GeneralÌÌ€€In€international€commercial€arbitration,€consent€to€arbitrate€and€hence€the€arbitrators'€mandate€is€typically€contained€in€a€clause€embedded€in€a€main€contract.€Ordinarily,€the€mutual€commitment€to€arbitrate€is€forged€before€dispute€arises€and€implicates€only€those€in€contractual€privity.€By€contrast,€Chapter€11€contains€the€NAFTA€states'€continuing€offer€to€a€class€of€potential€claimants€to€arbitrate€claims€fitting€within€subject€matter€and€temporal€parameters€enunciated€in€NAFTA's€text.€In€pressing€a€claim,€the€investor€in€a€sense€accepts€the€host€state's€offer,€and€hence€its€terms.€[FN47]ò ò€*1394ó ó€Most€Chapter€11€arbitrations€have€involved€jurisdictional€contests€instigated€by€respondent€states€relying€upon€the€limitations€and€qualifications€said€by€them€to€condition€their€offer€to€arbitrate.€Chapter€11€is€unique€within€NAFTA's€multi„chapter€network€of€trilateral€undertakings,€which€extends€well€beyond€questions€of€investor€protections.€While€private€entities€are€the€intended€beneficiaries€of€many€of€NAFTA's€protections,€it€is€only€breaches€of€Chapter€11€that€may€be€redressed€through€private€arbitral€claims.€Thus,€just€as€a€contract€may€designate€only€certain€of€its€provisions€as€arbitrable,€leaving€the€remainder€for€other€forms€of€dispute€resolution,€so€has€NAFTA€limited€private€arbitral€standing€to€Chapter€11.€[FN48]ÌÌ€€2.€Terms€of€Art€as€Jurisdictional€GatekeepersÌÌ€€Chapter€11€tribunals€are€empowered€to€decide€jurisdictional€questions€in€the€first€instance€and€in€doing€so€are€bound€by€the€scope€and€character€of€the€consent€establishing€their€competency.€The€types€of€jurisdictional€limitation€classically€associated€with€tribunals„„temporal,€subject€matter€related,€and€personal„„are€apparent€in€Chapter€11,€which€sets€forth€expressly€or€by€implication€numerous€prerequisites€to€a€viable€arbitration.€Limitations€ratione€temporis€would€include€the€rule€that€to€be€actionable€a€breach€of€NAFTA's€undertakings€must€have€occurred€not€earlier€than€January€1,€1994,€NAFTA's€effective€date.€[FN49]€Subject„matter€strictures€(jurisdictionò ò€*1395ó ó€ratione€materiae),€confine€actions€essentially€to€those€arising€out€of€"measures€adopted€or€maintained€by€a€Party€relating€to€.€.€.€investments€.€.€.€in€the€territory€of€the€Party."€[FN50]€Proper€persons€(jurisdiction€ratione€personae),€consist€in€the€claimant€being€a€national€of€a€NAFTA€Party€other€than€the€respondent€NAFTA€state.ÌÌ€€The€surgical€approach€of€states€in€pressing€limits€on€the€types€of€claims€that€may€be€brought€has€ensured€that€no€subsidiary€element€to€be€divined€from€the€text€goes€unnoticed.€Chapter€11€submissions€and€awards€bristle€with€hard€fought€battles€over€the€meaning€of€"measure,"€"adopted€and€maintained,"€"by€a€Party,"€[FN51]€"relating€to,"€[FN52]€"an€investment,"€and€"an€investor€of€a€Party."€[FN53]€Seemingly€clericalò ò€*1396ó ó€elements€in€the€claims€processing€protocol€have€also€been€invoked€by€respondent€states,€sometimes€with€surprising€success.€In€at€least€two€cases,€for€example,€Chapter€11€tribunals€have€had€to€consider€defects€in€the€waiver€required€by€Article€1121.€[FN54]ÌÌò ò*1397ó ó€D.€NAFTA€Jurisprudence:€Accessibility€and€ImportanceÌÌ€€The€practice€of€publishing€Chapter€11€awards€gives€NAFTA€jurisprudence€an€accessibility€greater€than€that€associated€with€international€commercial€awards.€To€some€extent,€the€ready€availability€of€Chapter€11€briefs,€orders,€and€awards€acknowledges€the€potentially€immense€sphere€of€influence€likely€to€be€enjoyed€by€such€work„product.€Well€over€2000€BITs€exist€at€present.€Many€of€them€have€marked€similarities€to€each€other€and€to€Chapter€11,€giving€Chapter€11€awards€immediate€relevance€outside€of€the€three€NAFTA€countries.€[FN55]ÌÌ€€NAFTA€jurisprudence€has€a€broader€constituency€than€commercial€arbitration€in€another€respect.€Citizens€of€the€three€states€have€a€stake€in€the€manner€in€which€their€governments€behave€generally€and€in€the€way€in€which€they€mediate€the€sometimes€competing€goals€of€promoting€trade,€protecting€local€enterprise,€and€regulating€on€the€public's€behalf.€NAFTA€arbitration€holds€government€conduct€up€to€scrutiny€that€it€might€not€otherwise€receive.€Concurrently,€a€given€tribunal's€power€to€influence€the€mix€of€competing€interests€by€attaching€a€penalty€to€governmental€choices€has€far„reaching€implications.€[FN56]ÌÌ€€Chapter€11€has€also€had€tertiary€influences€on€business€culture,€apart€from€inducing€enterprises€to€order€corporate€affairs€to€avail€of€treaty€advantages.€Instances€have€occurred,€for€example,€in€which€Chapter€11€has€been€invoked€for€its€in€terrorem€value.€In€Metalclad,€a€kind€of€preemptive€deployment€was€attempted€by€counsel€for€the€investor€who€supplied€the€Mexican€government€with€the€draft€Chapter€11€claim,€[FN57]€hoping€to€effect€a€change€of€course.€[FN58]€Similarly,€inò ò€*1398ó ó€Ethyl€the€claimant€filed€its€notice€of€intent€to€arbitrate€while€the€complained€of€measure€was€yet€before€Canadian€lawmakers.€[FN59]€There€was€also€a€Mexican€supermarket€chain€which,€in€anticipation€of€being€denied€a€certain€permit€in€California,€alerted€the€press€[FN60]€to€an€imminent€"reverse€Metalclad"€breach€of€Chapter€11,€a€reference€to€Metalclad€v.€Mexico€in€which€a€certain€permit€figured€prominently€in€facts€leading€to€recovery.€[FN61]€Because€of€the€private€standing€conferred€under€Chapter€11,€there€have€also€been€attempts€to€style€certain€non„Chapter€11€grievances€as€investment„related€in€an€effort€to€avail€of€an€arbitral€remedy€otherwise€not€available.€[FN62]ÌÌÓ  Óò ò*1399ó ó€III.€Docket€CharacteristicsÌÓ  ÓÌA.€Subject€MatterÌÌ€€The€explicit€focus€of€Chapter€11's€substantive€guarantees€is€the€"measures"€of€one€party€relating€to€"investors"€and€Ainvestments€of€investors"€of€another€party.€[FN63]€The€treaty€defines€these€terms€broadly€[FN64]€and,€in€general,€tribunals€have€declined€to€give€them€a€restrictive€scope.€A€wide€variety€of€"measure"€types€have€been€the€basis€of€claims,€including€trade€restrictions€(import€and€export),€justice€system€practices€(in€particular€alleged€denials€of€justice€by€state€courts),€concession€cancellations,€alterations€in€real€property€rights,€and€permit„related€facility€closures.€The€substantive€provisions€more€often€relied€upon€are€those€contained€in€Articles€1102€(national€treatment),€[FN65]€1105€(minimum€standard)€[FN66]€and€1110€(expropriation).€[FN67]€That€many€of€the€measures€complained€of€affect€the€trans„boundary€movement€of€goods€and€services„„thus€implicating€chapters€other€than€11„„does€not€preclude€its€application€where€such€measures€also€"relate€to"€an€investment.€[FN68]ÌÌB.€Disputant€PatternsÌÌ€€Though€all€of€the€NAFTA€Parties€have€been€respondents,€certain€combinations€have€been€more€prevalent€than€others,€presumably€owing€in€part€to€geographically€influenced€investment€flows.€[FN69]€The€majority€of€claimants€against€the€United€States€have€been€Canadian.€Most€of€the€claims€against€Canada,€in€turn,€have€been€brought€by€U.S.€investors,€who€are€also€on€the€other€side€of€the€bulk€of€actions€brought€against€Mexico.€Actions€by€Mexican€investors€against€theò ò€*1400ó ó€other€two€parties€have€not€been€found€among€the€published€sources.€Similarly,€Canadian€claims€against€Mexico€have€not€been€reported.€[FN70]ÌÌC.€Regime€Selections€and€Arbitral€SeatsÌÌ€€In€the€approximately€sixteen€Chapter€11€claims€that€have€advanced€beyond€the€notice€of€intent€stage,€claimants€have€designated€both€available€arbitral€regimes€several€times,€though€the€Additional€Facility€has€been€the€more€frequently€selected€format.€[FN71]€Unlike€the€UNCITRAL€Rules€which,€by€1994,€had€experienced€considerable€use,€the€Additional€Facility€Rules€were€pressed€into€service€for€the€first€time€in€early€1997.€[FN72]€Published€data€demonstrate€that€U.S.€investors€have€since€overwhelmingly€selected€the€Additional€Facility€when€bringing€claims€against€Mexico,€but€have€preferred€the€UNCITRAL€Rules€in€arbitrations€with€Canada.€[FN73]€Canadian€investors€have€chosen€the€Additional€Facility€Rules€most€often€when€arbitrating€with€the€United€States.€These€patterns€no€doubt€reflect€a€variety€of€factors,€including€the€preferences€of€certain€firms€whose€services€have€been€enlisted€several€times€in€Chapter€11€cases.€Washington€D.C.,€Montreal,€Ottawa,€Toronto€and€Vancouver€B.C.€have€all€been€seats€of€Chapter€11€arbitration.€[FN74]€To€the€author's€knowledge,€no€Mexican€city€has€yet€been€selected.ÌÌD.€Settlement€and€RecoveriesÌÌ€€The€initiation€of€a€Chapter€11€claim€has€rarely€led€to€settlement.€Though€several€claims€have€been€abandoned,€perhaps€only€two„„both€against€Canada„„have€been€resolved€early€in€the€process€by€the€aggrieved€investor€accepting€an€offer€of€compensation.€[FN75]€Claimants€in€many€Chapter€11€cases€have€alleged€extensive€damages.€[FN76]€The€amounts€in€controversy€confirm€the€sense€that€Chapter€11's€dispute€mechanism€attracts€significant€claims€generally€brought€byò ò€*1401ó ó€enterprises€with€correspondingly€adequate€funding€to€contemplate€a€vigorous,€protracted€campaign.€The€elite€character€of€the€process€is€further€illuminated€when€the€chances€of€success€are€considered;€the€docket€to€date€makes€plain€that€the€probability€of€non„recovery,€or€less„than€expected€recovery,€is€high,€as€vividly€conveyed€in€table€form€below.€[FN77]€Despite€regular€invocation€of€NAFTA's€expropriation€provisions,€only€one€award€has€found€a€compensable€taking.€[FN78]€Two€relatively€small€recoveries€have€been€awarded€against€Canada€under€Article€1105's€fair€and€equitable€treatment€provision€(totaling€roughly€$5€million),€[FN79]€and€another€award€(7.5€million€pesos)€has€been€levied€against€Mexico€for€breach€of€its€national€treatment€obligations.€[FN80]€Tribunals€thus€far€have€also€exhibited€a€disinclination€to€award€costs€of€the€proceeding,€though€the€costs€of€deciding€a€specific€issue€have€sometimes€been€awarded.€[FN81]ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.€The€Processes€of€NAFTA€JurisprudenceÌÓ  ÓÌA.€Tribunal€Relationship€to€Domestic€CourtsÌÌ€€Virtually€from€the€first€award€issued,€NAFTA€tribunals€have€disavowed€any€appellate€competency€over€domestic€courts.€[FN82]€The€most€recent€and€elaborate€enunciation€came€in€Loewen,€a€case€in€which€the€tribunal€was€highly€critical€of€the€state€court€proceeding€that€engendered€the€claim.€Despite€condemning€the€state€court€proceedings€in€question€in€the€strongest€of€terms,€the€tribunal€feltò ò€*1402ó ó€compelled€to€"stay€its€hand"€in€acknowledgment€of€the€limited€mandate€conferred€upon€Chapter€11€tribunals.€[FN83]ÌÌ€€Additionally,€domestic€court€rulings€have€often€been€given€appreciable€deference€by€tribunals€when€announcing€the€content€of€domestic€law.€This€is€not€surprising€given€the€relative€expertise€a€domestic€court€can€be€supposed€to€have€in€relation€to€local€law.€Regardless,€it€is€textbook€doctrine€that€the€two€spheres€are€separate.€A€failure€to€comply€with€domestic€law€does€not€necessarily€imply€a€breach€of€NAFTA.€[FN84]€Nor€does€lawfulness€of€a€measure€under€domestic€law€control€on€the€international€plane€[FN85]€and€indeed,€since€the€conductò ò€*1403ó ó€of€a€domestic€court€may€itself€constitute€a€Chapter€11€"measure,"€[FN86]€its€handling€of€litigation€involving€an€investor€may€support€a€Chapter€11€claim.€[FN87]ÌÌB.€Sources€of€Substantive€GuidanceÌÌ€€1.€In€GeneralÌÌ€€Chapter€11€tribunals€are€instructed€to€apply€the€NAFTA€text€and€"applicable€rules€of€international€law."€[FN88]€In€discharging€this€mandate€they€have€consulted,€in€addition€to€the€treaty's€text,€non„treaty€sources€including€custom,€general€principles,€[FN89]€reasoned€adjudications,€and€publicists.€Among€the€customary€principles€relied€upon€have€been€rules€of€treaty€interpretation,€[FN90]€elements€of€the€law€of€takings,€[FN91]€and€principles€of€state€responsibility.€[FN92]€Often€to€provideò ò€*1404ó ó€evidence€of€custom,€resort€has€been€had€to€treaties€and€other€texts€thought€to€codify€custom,€[FN93]€certain€International€Law€Commission€(ILC)€drafts€and€reports,€[FN94]€and€occasionally€the€Restatement€(Third)€of€the€Law€of€Foreign€Relations.€[FN95]€As€developed€below,€open€borrowing€from€trade€law€decisions,€and€careful€study€of€the€awards€of€other€arbitral€tribunals€have€been€commonplace.€[FN96]ÌÌ€€2.€Consultation€of€Domestic€SourcesÌÌ€€NAFTA€tribunals€and€the€NAFTA€bar€have€invoked€various€domestic€and€private€law€principles.€One€finds€in€the€awards€references€to€domestic€administrative€law,€[FN97]€decisional€law€[FN98]€and€legislation.€[FN99]€Perhaps€not€surprisingly,€rather€than€always€being€the€product€of€exacting€comparative€method,€the€national€rules€relied€upon€have€often€been€supplied€by€the€jurisdictions€in€which€the€arbitrators„„most€notably€the€presiding€arbitrators„„have€been€trained.€Thus,€while€in€the€abstract€the€link€between€a€NAFTA€case€and,€for€instance,€the€Greek€Civil€Code€seems€elusive,€as€an€example€familiar€to€the€tribunal€it€is€understandable.€[FN100]ÌÌ€€Though€to€consult€general€principles€common€to€developed€legal€systems€is€concordant€with€general€conceptions€of€international€lawò ò€*1405ó ó€sources,€[FN101]€there€are€limits€to€which€analogies€supplied€by€private€law€can€be€employed;€at€least€one€Chapter€11€tribunal€has€been€clear€that€silence€in€the€NAFTA€text€does€not€irresistibly€lead€to€adoption€of€a€private€law€approach.€[FN102]ÌÌ€€3.€International€AuthoritiesÌÌ€€a.€AdjudicationÌÌ€€In€addition€to€the€quite€understandable€tendency€to€consult€the€reasoned€decisions€of€other€Chapter€11€arbitrators€(returned€to€below),€Chapter€11€tribunals€have€often€referred€to€the€decisions€of€other€international€tribunals€such€as€the€International€Court€of€Justice,€[FN103]€the€Iran„U.S.€Claims€Tribunal,€[FN104]€various€claimsò ò€*1406ó ó€commissions,€[FN105]€numerous€tribunals€convened€under€the€ICSID€Convention,€[FN106]€and€certain€ad€hoc€arbitration€tribunals.€[FN107]€GATT€and€WTO€jurisprudence€has€been€consulted€both€in€relation€to€NAFTA€provisions€with€obvious€trade€law€analogues,€such€as€Article€1102€(treatment€"no€less€favorable€than"€that€accorded€nationals)€and€for€principles€of€international€adjudication.€[FN108]ÌÌ€€b.€Texts,€Commentaries,€and€PublicistsÌÌ€€In€relation€to€the€mounting€literature€on€Chapter€11,€tribunals€have€been€very€selective;€more€often€than€not,€individual€publicists€have€been€cited€for€their€works€of€general€importance,€not€for€essays€specific€to€Chapter€11,€and€certain€standard€references,€many€time„honored,€have€been€regularly€consulted.€For€example,ò ò€*1407ó ó€Amerasinghe,€[FN109]€Bourchard,€[FN110]€Cheng,€[FN111]€de€Arechaga,€[FN112]€and€Freeman€[FN113]€are€among€the€names€one€encounters€several€times.ÌÌC.€Reasoning€Methodologies€and€Tribunal€AttitudesÌÌ€€Both€within€a€given€tribunal€and€among€tribunals,€Chapter€11€arbitrators€have€represented€a€diverse€range€of€legal€traditions:€civil€law,€common€law,€and€mixed.€[FN114]€Whatever€the€tribunal's€makeup,€the€arguments€of€advocates€and€the€authority€they€have€marshaled€have€often€dictated€much€of€its€focus€and€analysis.€Many€of€the€awards€produced€seem€to€share,€methodologically,€a€common€law€influence.€Despite€the€absence€of€stare€decisis,€[FN115]€prior€awards€have€often€been€carefully€dissected,€sometimes€cited€with€approval,€and€sometimes€distinguished€on€their€facts.ÌÌ€€Substantively,€tribunals€have€often€been€progressive€in€adapting,€refining,€and€articulating€governing€principles€and€as€in€matters€of€procedure,€have€often€relied€for€inspiration€on€NAFTA's€objects€and€purposes.€[FN116]€Despite€the€unifying€influences€mentioned€below,€the€decentralization€built€into€Chapter€11's€system€of€ad€hoc€adjudications€has€produced€variations€in€approach,€tone€and€principle.€Unanimous€awards€have€been€common.€Nevertheless,€separate€opinions,€both€concurring€[FN117]€and€dissenting,€[FN118]€have€occasionally€been€authored€„€often€to€the€great€benefit€of€the€reader.€Invariably,€the€individual€facts€of€the€particular€case€have€proven€pivotal.ÌÌ€€Despite€being€invited€to€by€respondent€states,€tribunals,€in€general,€have€not€been€quick€to€adopt€narrow€meanings€of€such€words€as€"investment,"€"investor,"€"measure,"€and€the€like,€in€part€becauseò ò€*1408ó ó€those€terms€are€broadly€defined€in€NAFTA€itself.€[FN119]€They€have€also€distinguished€conditions€that€are€fundamental€to€their€jurisdiction€from€procedural€conditions€more€appropriately€thought€of€as€clerical€or€going€to€claim€admissibility.€[FN120]€Open€rebukes€of€legal€formalisms€sometimes€have€surfaced,€[FN121]€and€claimants€have€been€allowed€to€evolve€theories€of€recovery€and€to€amend€claims€during€the€course€of€proceedings,€absent€prejudice€to€the€respondent.€[FN122]ÌÌD.€Unifying€ForcesÌÌ€€1.€In€GeneralÌÌ€€The€decentralized€and€fragmentary€nature€of€international€law€sources€and€the€differing€backgrounds€of€the€arbitrators€and€advocates€have€combined€with€many€questions€of€first€impression€to€generate€differing€approaches€to€identical€issues.€Nevertheless,€even€in€the€absence€of€a€unifying€appellate€mechanism,€several€influences„„both€formal€and€informal„„have€promoted€convergence€on€several€points.€These€influences€include€cross„consultation€of€decisions€among€NAFTA€tribunals,€the€NAFTA€Parties'€Article€1128€submissions€and€responsive€pleadings,€the€binding€interpretations€those€parties€may€jointly€issue,€and€the€set„aside€jurisprudence€produced€by€domestic€courts.ÌÌò ò€€*1409ó ó€2.€Inter„Tribunal€Cross„FertilizationÌÌ€€The€ready€availability€of€Chapter€11€awards€and€associated€materials€has€equipped€disputants€to€invoke€in€a€current€proceeding€the€reasoning€of€other€NAFTA€tribunals.€[FN123]€The€willingness€of€arbitrators€to€consult€and€sometimes€adopt€the€reasoning€of€other€Chapter€11€tribunals€has€generated,€if€somewhat€unpredictably,€strands€of€uniformity.€[FN124]€One€suspects,€moreover,€that€even€when€a€prior€award€is€not€embraced,€the€added€reflection€stimulated€by€a€competing€view€has€exerted€a€beneficial€influence€on€award€quality.ÌÌ€€3.€Direct€and€Indirect€Submissions€of€Non„Disputant€PartiesÌÌ€€Non„disputant€NAFTA€Parties€may€contribute€their€views€to€sitting€Chapter€11€Tribunals€in€at€least€two,€non„binding€ways:€one€is€direct,€the€other€indirect.€First,€NAFTA€states€that€are€not€party€to€a€particular€Chapter€11€proceeding€are,€under€Article€1128,€entitled€to€make€submissions€on€questions€of€interpretation.€[FN125]€In€contrast€to€the€Interpretations€rendered€jointly€by€the€three€Parties€under€Article€1131(2),€Article€1128€submissions€do€not€necessarily€evince€a€single€view.€Accordingly,€in€addition€to€stimulating€further€comments€by€the€disputants,€they€may€serve€a€moderating€function,€either€because€the€respondent€state€softens€its€position€in€anticipation€of€the€potentially€contradicting€views€of€its€NAFTA€co„Parties€or€because€it€does€not,€leaving€differing€views€before€the€tribunal.€[FN126]€Nothing,€of€course,€prevents€the€Parties€from€collaborating€before€making€Article€1128€submissions.€Regardless€of€whether€they€do,€where€their€views€agree,ò ò€*1410ó ó€a€tribunal,€though€not€bound€by€the€apparent€accord,€generally€will€take€due€account€of€it.€[FN127]ÌÌ€€The€NAFTA€Parties€have€regularly€exercised€their€right€to€make€submissions€as€non„disputants.€Their€submissions,€however,€are€often€selective€in€the€questions€addressed.€Such€self„restraint€is€a€function€of€resources€and€of€prudential€considerations;€unlike€many€private€litigants,€states€must€consider€both€the€reciprocal€and€long„term€implications€of€a€views€they€sponsor,€and€how€those€views€mesh€with€past€positions€they€have€taken.€There€is€no€doubt€a€tension€between€the€dual€roles€of€each€NAFTA€Party.€Ultimately,€each€is€both€a€home€state€to€investors€requiring€protection€abroad€and€a€member€of€a€class€of€perpetual€respondents.ÌÌ€€Concurrently,€the€inter„Party€distribution€of€pleadings€promoted€by€an€explicit€NAFTA€provision€[FN128]€has€resulted,€functionally€speaking,€in€indirect€submissions€by€non„disputant€states.€Specifically,€it€is€not€unusual€for€a€NAFTA€respondent€in€one€proceeding€to€rely€on€views€independently€taken€in€other€proceedings€by€one€or€both€of€the€other€two€NAFTA€states.€Whether€the€objective€is€to€formally€suggest€to€the€arbitrators€a€species€of€state€practice€or€merely€to€offer€evidence€of€the€NAFTA€Parties'€intent,€the€concordant€views€of€the€Parties€become€available€for€tribunal€consideration.ÌÌ€€4.€Binding€InterpretationsÌÌ€€As€noted€above€and€more€fully€treated€below,€[FN129]€Chapter€11's€governing€law€provision€[FN130]€instructs€tribunals€to€decide€by€reference€to€applicable€rules€of€international€law,€the€NAFTA€text,€and€any€interpretations€issued€by€the€NAFTA€Fair€Trade€Commission€(FTC).€The€FTC's€interpretations,€though€having€no€direct€effect€on€the€content€of€custom,€by€definition€establish€a€common€meaning€to€the€NAFTA€text€in€question,€representing€the€only€formal,€centralized,€mechanism€for€unifying€NAFTA€jurisprudence.€The€Commission€has€produced€one€such€interpretation,€eliminating€certain€questions€raised€by€Article€1105€and€prompting€others.€[FN131]ÌÌò ò€€*1411ó ó€5.€Set„Aside€PrecedentÌÌ€€The€published€set„aside€decisions€of€domestic€courts€within€the€NAFTA€territories,€though€limited€to€narrow€grounds€of€review,€may€affect€the€content€and€formation€of€Chapter€11€jurisprudence.€Though€instances€of€completed€set€aside€proceedings€are€limited€for€the€time€being€to€Justice€Tysoe's€Metalclad€decision,€[FN132]€as€that€decision€illustrates,€a€court's€examination€of€a€tribunal's€mandate€often€traverses€matters€of€substance.€[FN133]€Such€open€explorations€may€occur€as€a€natural€by„product€of€matching€the€tribunal's€apparent€mandate€with€the€sources€and€powers€it€purported€to€employ.€In€Metalclad,€the€tribunal€found€a€failure€to€accord€fair€and€equitable€treatment€under€Article€1105€and€an€expropriation€(on€two€separate€theories)€obliging€Mexico€to€compensate€the€investor.€Justice€Tysoe€partially€set€the€award€aside,€reasoning€that€the€tribunal€had€exceeded€its€mandate€by€announcing€a€transparency€principle€not€expressly€found€in€Chapter€11.€[FN134]ÌÌ€€The€Tysoe€opinion€ventures€observations€about€NAFTA's€architecture€and€about€the€resulting€content€of€Articles€1105€and€1110.€Though€criticized€by€numerous€commentators€as€being€too€invasive,€[FN135]€Justice€Tysoe's€opinion€adds€to€the€available€information€just€as€any€thoughtfully„crafted€decision€would.€As€the€only€set„aside€judgment€thus€far,€it€has€been€studied€by€Chapter€11€tribunals,€both€for€interpretive€guidance€[FN136]€and€presumably€in€seeking€to€immunize€their€awards€from€a€similar€fate.€[FN137]€Disputants€have€consulted€it€forò ò€*1412ó ó€substantive€insights€and€in€assessing€the€relative€suitability€of€Vancouver€as€an€arbitral€seat.€[FN138]€Other€courts€asked€to€nullify€Chapter€11€awards,€especially€those€operating€under€the€Model€Law,€will€no€doubt€refer€to€it€as€well.€[FN139]ÌÌÓ  ÓV.€Popular€Misgivings:€Fact€and€FableÌÓ  ÓÌA.€In€GeneralÌÌ€€That€Chapter€11€has€commanded€a€remarkably€diverse€audience€is€apparent€from€a€perusal€of€the€mounting€literature.€The€introduction€of€voices€from€outside€the€ranks€of€international€law€specialists€has€occasioned€fresh€perspectives,€eloquent€studies,€popular€oversimplifications€and€the€occasional€unmitigated€canard.€Among€experts€as€well,€variations€in€orientation€have€engendered€shades€of€attitude€reflected€in€expressions€of€concern€and€calls€for€reform.€While€it€is€not€the€purpose€of€this€essay€to€catalog€and€critique€the€profusion€of€views€in€evidence,€a€brief€exploration€is€offered€of€recurrent€themes€bearing€most€heavily€on€systemic€viability€and€legitimacy.€[FN140]€What€follows€are€introductory€discussions€of€private€standing€to€assert€treaty€breaches€(free€of€espousal€and€exhaustion),€substantive€indeterminacy,€process€transparency,€arbitrator€accountability€and€the€impact€of€potential€Chapter€11€liability€on€regulation.ÌÌò ò*1413ó ó€B.€Chapter€11€as€"Unprecedented"ÌÌ€€1.€The€Labels€and€Underlying€SensibilitiesÌÌ€€Some€commentators€have€referred€to€Chapter€11€as€"unique"€[FN141]€or€€"unprecedented."€[FN142]€Characterizations€of€this€type€typically€have€reference€to€a€cluster€of€Chapter€11€attributes€and€potentialities.€Most€prominently€these€include€the€direct€standing€conferred€on€investors€in€relation€to€alleged€Chapter€11€breaches€[FN143]€and€the€corresponding€possibility€that€a€state€may€be€required€to€pay€damages,€possibly€for€activities€undertaken€for€a€public€purpose€in€circumstances€in€which€that€sovereign's€own€courts€have€been€shunned€by€the€investor€[FN144]€and€in€which€that€sovereign's€own€citizens€may€not€have€been€able€to€recover.€[FN145]€Some€commentators€also€emphasize€the€high€number€of€Chapter€11€claims€likely€to€arise€and€the€corresponding€prospect€that€both€NAFTA€state€coffers€and€regulatory€zeal€will€suffer.€[FN146]€More€specifically,€Chapter€11€is€thought€to€be€different€from€existing€investment€treaties€because€of€its€tripartite€character,€the€well„developed€regulatory€apparatuses€in€place€in€two€of€the€three€countries,€the€high€volume€of€trade€involved€and€the€resulting€possibility€that€powerful€enterprises„„inevitably€affected€by€regulation„„will€use€Chapter€11€to€shift€business€risks€properly€borne€by€themselves€to€NAFTA€territory€taxpayers.€The€notions€that€direct€standing€is€novel€and€ill„considered€are€addressed€in€the€immediately€following€sections;€the€question€of€chilling€effect€is€discussed€more€fully€under€Subsection€G€below.ÌÌò ò€€*1414ó ó€2.€Chapter€11's€LineageÌÌ€€In€light€of€not€too€recent€treaty€practice,€comment€denying€Chapter€11€of€a€pedigree€may€tend€to€mislead.€[FN147]€At€least€thirty€years€before€Chapter€11€took€effect,€BITs€had€begun€to€both€grant€direct€investor€standing€and€to€waive€the€local€remedies€rule,€often€in€connection€with€a€designation€of€ICSID€arbitration.€[FN148]€By€the€time€NAFTA€took€effect,€numerous€U.S.€BITs€had€established€the€right€of€foreign€investors€to€bring€arbitral€claims€against€the€United€States,€in€exchange€for€reciprocal€rights€for€U.S.€investors.€[FN149]ÌÌ€€Like€their€European€counterparts,€[FN150]€U.S.€BITs€in€increasing€numbers€contemplate€that€a€tribunal€composed€exclusively€or€partially€of€foreign€lawyers€(typically€holding€no€judicial€rank€in€their€home€countries)€will€be€empowered,€for€the€single€dispute€in€question,€to€award€damages€to€an€investor,€subject€to€little€or€no€judicial€review,€perhaps€based€on€state€conduct€that€was€perfectly€lawful€as€a€matter€of€domestic€law.€This€central€thesis€animates€the€highly€successful€ICSID€Convention€[FN151]€and€it€is€to€this€basic€model€that€international€agencies€point€in€counseling€states€seeking€to€attract€foreign€direct€investment.€[FN152]€It€was€to€a€variation€of€this€formula€that€the€creators€of€the€Iran„U.S.€Claims€Tribunal€turned€over€twoò ò€*1415ó ó€decades€ago€[FN153]€and€from€which€the€drafters€of€the€ill„fated€Multilateral€Investment€Agreement€(MIA)€took€inspiration€in€composing€its€investor„host€dispute€provisions.€[FN154]€While€the€uninitiated€may€find€the€standard€dispute€features€of€modern€BITs€and€Chapter€11€remarkable,€those€texts€adhere€to€a€norm€that€persists€also€in€post„1994€treaty€practice,€serving€as€a€model€even€for€Mexican€BIT's.€[FN155]ÌÌC.€Direct€Standing€or€Espousal?ÌÌ€€1.€The€QuestionÌÌ€€As€noted€above,€for€some€critics,€the€seemingly€unbridled€prerogative€of€wealthy€corporations€to€promote€their€narrow€interests€through€NAFTA€claims€without€having€to€consult€broader€societal€priorities€is€part€of€what€condemns€Chapter€11.€[FN156]€Given€that€the€obligations€relied€upon€are€owed€among€states€and€not€directly€to€NAFTA€Party€citizens,€should€not€claims€of€private€injury€be€moderated€by€interposing€home„state€discretion€in€the€claims€process?€Should€not€some€mechanism€prevent€the€disruption€of€initiatives€common€to€states€acting€for€the€common€good?€Traditional€espousal€was€such€a€mechanism.ÌÌ€€2.€Espousal:€State€of€Nationality€as€Traditional€ProtectorÌÌ€€Under€the€traditional€method€still€functioning€today,€international€obligations„„such€as€the€rules€governing€treatment€of€aliens€and€their€property„„primarily€bind€states€inter€se.€Mistreatment€of€an€alien€was€for€the€state€of€nationality€to€pursue,€inò ò€*1416ó ó€its€discretion,€by€exercising€"diplomatic€protection,"€thus€"espousing"€its€citizen's€claim.€[FN157]€The€corresponding€lack€of€private€standing€on€the€international€plane€left€aggrieved€parties€to€seek€redress€in€the€domestic€courts.€Justice€in€host€state€courts€often€proved€elusive,€however,€for€reasons€not€difficult€to€imagine,€while€in€the€investor's€home€fora,€questions€of€state€immunity€and€separation€of€powers€often€delayed€or€foreclosed€a€remedy.€[FN158]ÌÌ€€Difficulties€facing€investors€in€domestic€courts,€and€foreign€governments'€corresponding€reluctance€to€appear€there,€would€be€less€significant€if€the€mechanism€of€diplomatic€protection€provided€a€serviceable€substitute.€By€its€nature,€however,€the€doctrine€of€diplomatic€protection€confers€on€the€state€of€nationality€wide€latitude€in€determining,€what„„if€anything„„to€do€about€an€alleged€breach.€[FN159]€The€calculus€dictating€the€avenue€chosen€might€be€informed€by€the€full€range€of€interests€and€imperatives€affecting€states€in€an€interdependent€world;€for€the€aggrieved€investor€the€doctrine's€discretionary€nature€and€sometimes€non„transparent€mechanisms€provide€only€limited€control€and€predictability.€Limitations€on€ICJ€jurisdiction€[FN160]€in€turn€resulted€in€only€episodic€availability€of€the€standing€tribunal€arguably€best„suited€to€deciding€such€disputes.€Though€increasing€numbers€of€inter„state€arbitration€provisions€in€bilateral€treaties€have€provided€an€alternative€to€the€ICJ,€states€remain€only€somewhat€efficient€and€effective€in€marshaling€claims,€especially€where€only€a€single€investor€is€involved.€Moreover,€where€multiple€claims€have€arisen€(such€as€from€a€nationalization),€the€lump€sum€settlements€often€reached€frequently€do€not€make€investors€whole.€[FN161]ÌÌ€€From€the€vantage€of€the€host€state,€diplomatic€protection€is€encumbered€by€additional€defects,€not€least€its€reputation€as€a€prerogative€available€only€to€powerful€states€that€have€used€it€as€aò ò€*1417ó ó€pretext€for€undue€reprisals.€[FN162]€A€powerful€reminder€of€these€concerns€is€Article€27(1)€of€the€ICSID€Convention,€which€rewards€a€host€state's€offer€to€arbitrate€direct€investment€claims€by€disallowing€the€investor's€home€state€from€exercising€diplomatic€protection€once€a€dispute€has€been€submitted€to€ICSID.€[FN163]ÌÌ€€2.€Chapter€11€and€EspousalÌÌ€€It€follows€from€the€foregoing€that€the€trend€Chapter€11€follows€in€granting€private€standing€to€make€direct€claims€is€neither€experimental€nor€accidental.€Espousal,€though€responsible€for€interesting€investment„related€decisions,€such€as€Barcelona€Traction€[FN164]€and€ELSI,€[FN165]€would€mesh€poorly€with€NAFTA's€stated€objective€of€creating€"effective€procedures€for€.€.€.€the€resolution€of€disputes."€[FN166]ÌÌ€€For€host€states€the€direct€standing€approach€(combined€with€the€foreclosure€of€other€avenues)€greatly€limits€their€exposure€both€to€municipal€court€actions€abroad€and€diplomatic€protection.€It€also€signifies€to€prospective€investors€and€to€other€stakeholders€that€protections€corresponding€to€the€prevailing€model€are€in€place€in€theò ò€*1418ó ó€host€country.€[FN167]€For€investors,€direct€arbitration€provides€an€independent,€expert,€systemically€neutral€alternative€to€domestic€courts,€especially€those€of€the€host€state.€It€also€carries€greater€autonomy,€control,€efficiency,€and€predictability€than€diplomatic€protection,€while€producing€a€result€that€is€globally€enforceable€by€treaty.€[FN168]ÌÌD.€Direct€Standing€and€Exhaustion€of€Local€RemediesÌÌ€€1.€Exhaustion€In€GeneralÌÌ€€The€doctrine€that€an€aggrieved€foreign€national€must€exhaust€local€remedies€before€it„„or€its€state€of€nationality„„brings€a€claim€against€the€host€state€on€the€international€plane€is€well€established€in€customary€international€law,€[FN169]€so€much€so€that€a€distinguished€chamber€of€the€International€Court€of€Justice,€as€recently€as€1989,€was€unwilling€to€infer,€without€a€convincing€basis,€that€the€doctrine€did€not€obtain€under€the€bilateral€treaty€there€involved.€In€that€case€(the€ELSI€decision)€the€majority€opinion€referred€to€the€exhaustion€doctrine€as€"an€important€principle€of€customary€international€law."€[FN170]ÌÌ€€It€is€not€from€simple€inertia€that€the€exhaustion€doctrine€still€occupies€a€place€in€custom,€and€its€underlying€policies€are€not€difficult€to€divine.€Allowing€the€host€state's€internal€mechanisms€of€redress€to€operate€may€result€in€an€expeditious€adjustment€to€the€dispute,€saving€that€state€the€embarrassment€of€an€international€claim€and€adding€deference€and,€perhaps,€fairness€to€the€process.€In€settings€in€which€the€alternative€is€home€state€espousal,€successful€resort€to€municipal€remedies€spares€the€two€states€involved€the€negative€effects€of€adversarial€dealings.€Requiring€domestic€proceedings€moreover€promotes€a€ripening€of€claims€and€helps€develop€a€factual€base€that€may€facilitate€more€informed€adjudication€in€anyò ò€*1419ó ó€subsequent€international€proceeding.€Particularly€in€a€case€of€an€alleged€denial€of€justice,€it€may€make€little€sense€to€credit€the€claim€where€the€domestic€mechanisms€in€place€for€addressing€low€level€justice€system€missteps€have€not€been€pursued.€Given€the€forgoing€and€related€considerations,€at€least€one€commentator€has€concluded€that€exhaustion€ought€to€be€encouraged,€if€not€required,€in€at€least€some€Chapter€11€arbitrations.€[FN171]ÌÌ€€As€a€matter€of€first€principles,€however,€states€may€through€treaty€waive€the€local€remedies€rule.€In€the€context€of€a€treaty€intended€to€promote€investment€by€supplying€effective€dispute€resolution€means,€there€may€be€solid€reasons€to€eliminate€the€exhaustion€phase€in€perfecting€the€claim.€Apart€from€the€argument€that€exhaustion€makes€illusory€a€sovereign's€commitment€to€arbitrate,€[FN172]€are€the€delay€that€ponderous€domestic€adjudication€may€produce€and€the€corresponding€effects€of€the€passage€of€time€(such€as€degradation€in€evidence).€Further,€domestic€courts€may€not€offer€satisfactory€levels€of€neutrality€and€transparency,€defects€not€easily€addressed€by€a€Chapter€11€proceeding€given€the€rigors€of€establishing€denial€of€justice.€[FN173]€When€exhaustion€applies,€the€requirement€adds€an€issue€for€tribunal€consideration€and€an€additional€hurdle€for€the€claimant€to€overcome.€[FN174]€To€the€extent€that€the€claimant€elects€to€forgo€a€theoretically€available€avenue,€moreover,€the€tribunal€must€determine€whether€the€remedy€forsaken€was€effectively€futile€so€that€claimant's€foreshortening€of€the€process€can€be€forgiven.€[FN175]ÌÌ€€2.€Chapter€11€and€ExhaustionÌÌ€€No€Chapter€11€provision€explicitly€addresses€whether€investors€are€required€to€exhaust€local€remedies.€From€its€overall€architecture€a€compelling€inference€nevertheless€arises€that€no€such€requirement€applies€as€a€general€matter„„a€departure€from€the€customary€rule.€Rather€than€encouraging€exhaustion,€a€confluence€of€provisionsò ò€*1420ó ó€establish€a€cooling€off€period€and,€through€a€waiver€requirement,€disallow€most€domestic€proceedings€that€might€otherwise€parallel€the€arbitration.€[FN176]€In€relation€to€claims€brought€against€Mexico,€an€attempt€to€rely€on€NAFTA€in€a€domestic€court,€moreover,€may€constitute€an€election€precluding€subsequent€Chapter€11€arbitration.€[FN177]€Nevertheless,€in€certain€cases€the€exhaustion€question€has€featured€with€sufficient€gravity€in€the€disputants'€pleadings€that€the€tribunals€have€addressed€the€doctrine's€applicability.€The€awards€in€Metalclad€and€Feldman€both€devoted€attention€to€the€question:€both€found€that€exhaustion€is€not€required,€[FN178]€a€conclusion€also€reached€by€commentators€[FN179]€and€other€Chapter€11€tribunals.€[FN180]€Against€this€background,€the€Loewen€tribunal's€final€award€is€remarkable.€As€discussed€below,€the€tribunal€interpreted€Chapter€11€as€requiring€exhaustion,€at€least€in€denial€of€justice€cases.€To€place€Loewen€in€context,€brief€consideration€of€Metalclad„„a€non„denial€of€justice€case„„follows.ÌÌ€€3.€MetalcladÌÌ€€That€exhaustion€has€not€been€required€is€illustrated€well€by€Metalclad,€the€first€claim€filed€against€Mexico.€[FN181]€The€claimant€there€asserted€breaches€of€Articles€1105€and€1110.€Among€the€pivotal€events€in€the€case€were€a€municipality's€insistence€that€the€investor€apply€for€a€certain€permit€and€that€municipality's€subsequent€refusal€to€issue€that€permit.€The€investor's€initial€tack€was€to€attemptò ò€*1421ó ó€reversal€of€the€municipality's€decision€by€petitioning€the€municipality€itself.€[FN182]€It€discontinued€its€effort€after€losing€at€that€level,€preferring€rather€to€pursue€collaborative€initiatives€and€ultimately€Chapter€11€arbitration.€[FN183]€The€claim's€admissibility€was€not€affected€by€Metalclad's€abandonment€of€local€court€avenues.€[FN184]€Technically,€Metalclad€did€more€than€it€was€required€to€by€seeking€an€administrative€remedy.€Importantly,€however,€its€claim€was€not€predicated€on€alleged€mistreatment€in€Mexican€courts.€[FN185]ÌÌ€€4.€Consequences€for€the€Non„Exhausting€InvestorÌÌ€€Metalclad€also€demonstrates€the€more€subtle€substantive€consequences€of€removing€the€exhaustion€requirement.€To€the€extent€the€claimant€based€its€allegations€of€unfair€and€inequitable€treatment€on€the€actions€of€the€municipality,€it€could€do€so€without€placing€those€acts€in€the€context€of€the€entire€Mexican€system€for€correcting€low„level€errors.€That€is,€Mexico€faced€the€conundrum€of€arguing€that€fairness€must€be€considered€in€light€of€the€sum€total€of€remedial€mechanisms€available€to€the€investor€while€appearing€not€to€ask€the€tribunal€to€penalize€the€investor€for€doing€exactly€what€Chapter€11€allows.€Though€in€Metalclad,€the€investor's€failure€to€exhaust€the€court€system€had€little€apparent€bearing€on€the€award,€Mexico€successfully€made€its€point€(under€a€different€guise)€in€Feldman,€[FN186]€in€which€the€tribunal€was€influenced€by€the€investor's€failure€seasonably€to€clarify€by€formal€ruling€its€entitlement€to€certain€tax€rebates.€[FN187]€In€Feldman,€the€investor's€inaction€was€reflected€in€the€tribunal's€assessment€of€the€merits,€not€claim€admissibility.€Regardless,€it€underscores€that€a€claimant€fails€to€vigorously€consolidate€its€rights€within€the€domestic€system€to€its€peril.ÌÌò ò€€*1422ó ó€5.€Rethinking€Exhaustion:€Loewen€v.€United€StatesÌÌ€€Loewen€[FN188]€arose€out€of€a€lawsuit€brought€in€a€Mississippi€court€by€certain€American€owned€companies€with€close€ties€to€Mississippi,€against€a€Canadian€corporation€and€its€U.S.€subsidiary€(the€Loewen€companies).€The€plaintiff's€action€related€to€a€troubled€commercial€transaction€between€the€parties€and€alleged€breach€of€contract,€unfair€competition€and€fraud.€[FN189]€According€to€the€Chapter€11€tribunal's€subsequent€evaluation€of€the€proceedings,€plaintiff's€trial€strategy€seemed€calculated€to€inflame€jury€prejudice€on€the€basis€of€the€defendant's€national€origin€in€comparison€to€plaintiff's€own€local€roots.€The€trial€court€failed€to€control€the€tactic€or€to€take€effective€measures€to€mitigate€its€effects€with€the€jury,€[FN190]€which€after€a€seven€week€trial€awarded€the€plaintiff€$500€million,€including€$400€million€as€punitive€damages.€[FN191]€Thereafter,€the€Mississippi€Supreme€Court€declined€Loewen's€request€to€relax€the€125€percent€bonding€requirement€applicable€to€appeals€under€Mississippi€state€law.€[FN192]€Loewen€did€not€seek€U.S.€Supreme€court€review.€In€January€of€1996,€Loewen€settled€the€dispute,€agreeing€to€pay€the€judgment€holder€$175€million.€[FN193]ÌÌ€€In€July€of€1998,€Ray€Loewen€and€the€Canadian€parent€entity€brought€Chapter€11€claims,€advancing€among€other€bases€of€recovery,€denial€of€justice€(subsumed€within€Article€1105's€minimum€standard).€[FN194]€In€June€of€2003€both€claims€were€dismissed€on€jurisdictional€grounds.€[FN195]€The€award€nevertheless€contained€extensive€dicta€addressing€the€merits.€In€those€passages,€the€tribunal€concluded€that€despite€the€highly€deficient€state€court€proceedings€prompting€the€claim,€[FN196]€the€Loewen€claims€would€have€failed€under€the€local€remedies€rule.€The€tribunal€reasoned€that€the€failure€to€seekò ò€*1423ó ó€Supreme€Court€review€obliged€the€claimants€to€demonstrate€why€that€avenue€was€not€among€the€"reasonably€available€and€adequate"€local€remedies,€which€under€the€rule€a€claimant€must€pursue.€[FN197]€The€award,€which€has€generated€considerable€controversy,€contains€much€of€importance.ÌÌ€€Interpretive€issues€aside,€the€doctrine€adopted€in€Loewen€is€somewhat€attractive€in€that€before€a€state€will€be€held€responsible€for€the€acts€of€judicial€organs,€the€curative€mechanisms€designed€to€redress€the€type€of€error€complained€of€will€be€allowed€to€function.€Consequently,€the€investor€will€not„„by€ignoring€appeal€opportunities„„be€able€to€make€state€responsibility€depend€upon€on€what€may€be€the€host€state€justice€system's€weakest€link.€This€concern€was€at€heart€of€the€Loewen€tribunal's€thinking.€It€observed:Ì€€€€[I]t€would€be€very€strange€if€a€State€were€to€be€confronted€with€liability€for€a€breach€of€international€law€committed€by€its€magistrate€or€low„ranking€judicial€officer€when€domestic€avenues€of€appeal€were€not€pursued,€let€alone€exhausted.€[FN198]ÌÌ€€The€award,€however,€raises€questions€about€the€role€of€exhaustion€when€the€claim€is€not€based€on€judicial€conduct.€To€impose€an€exhaustion€requirement€the€tribunal€had€to€find€that€Article€1121€(requiring€waiver€of€domestic€proceedings)€did€not€by€implication€supplant€the€customary€doctrine€of€exhaustion.€It€may€well€be€true€that€Article€1121€is€not€aimed€at€the€exhaustion€requirement€specifically,€[FN199]€but€within€Chapter€11's€overall€architecture,€it€is€difficult€to€see€how€one€can€both€exhaust€local€remedies€and€waive€their€initiation€or€continuance.€[FN200]€The€tribunal€acknowledged€that€"Article€1121€may€have€consequences"€for€other€kinds€of€claims,€but€declined€to€speculate€further.€[FN201]€If€the€exhaustion€requirement€is€not€affected€by€Article€1121€when€judicial€acts€are€involved,€why€would€it€be€when€they€are€not?€Perhaps€the€same€beneficial€finality€requirement€applied€by€the€tribunal€could€have€been€installed€by€insisting€that€until€redress€has€been€pursued€at€the€highest€available€levels,€justice€system€acts€and€omissions€are€not€"measures€.€.€.€adopted€by€a€Party."€[FN202]ÌÌò ò€€*1424ó ó€Alternatively,€but€in€a€similar€vein,€the€"exhaustion"€requirement€identified€by€the€tribunal€might€come€to€be€viewed€as€a€substantive€element€specific€to€denial€of€justice€claims.€Thus,€just€as€a€recovery€under€Article€1110€(expropriation)€requires€a€showing€of€permanency€of€deprivation,€so€would€a€denial€of€justice€claim€imply€necessarily€that€appeals€had€been€fully€pursued€within€the€legal€system€under€consideration.€Regardless,€even€though€(and€perhaps€because)€the€just„minted€Loewen€award€is€both€fully€dictum€on€these€points€and€a€bit€elliptical,€one€should€expect€extensive€reaction€from€commentators.ÌÌ€€6.€The€Impact€of€Domestic€Court€AdjudicationÌÌ€€In€several€of€the€Chapter€11€expropriation€cases,€there€were€pre„claim€attempts€by€an€investor€to€pursue€local€remedies.€Often€the€findings€in€domestic€courts€have€been€unfavorable€to€the€investor.€While€Chapter€11€tribunals€are€not€bound€by€domestic€court€judgments,€they€have€been€influenced€by€those€determinations.€[FN203]€Provided€the€process€below€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€a€denial€of€justice€[FN204]„„itself€a€violation€of€Article€1105„„domestic€courts€may€be€regarded€as€shedding€persuasive€light€on€the€content€of€domestic€law,€as€Azinian,€the€second€case€filed€against€Mexico,€demonstrates.ÌÌ€€Azinian€arose€from€a€concession,€which€the€claimant€alleged€had€been€wrongfully€terminated€or€materially€breached.€[FN205]€Mexican€administrative€and€judicial€courts€had€passed€on€the€concession's€viability,€finding€it„„in€essence„„to€be€voidable,€because€of€the€manner€in€which€it€was€procured.€[FN206]€In€dismissing€Azinian's€claim,€a€unanimous€tribunal€credited€the€domestic€court€decisions€with€establishing€the€concession's€vulnerability€as€a€matter€of€Mexican€law.€[FN207]€It€followed€that€the€municipality€in€question€had€merely€acted€as€it€was€entitled€to€given€the€defective€rights€the€investor€held.€There€was€thus,€according€to€the€tribunal,€"by€definition€no€contract€to€be€expropriated."€[FN208]ÌÌ€€7.€Resulting€Strategic€ConsiderationsÌÌ€€In€denial€of€justice€cases,€Loewen€may€take€hold€among€NAFTA€arbitrators€so€that€an€investor€aggrieved€by€a€court's€handling€of€itsò ò€*1425ó ó€case€would€at€its€peril€fail€to€seek€appeal€at€the€highest€level.€If,€as€seems€likely,€Loewen€remains€limited€to€denial€of€justice€claims,€in€relation€to€non„justice€system€measures€investors€will€retain€the€choices€whether€and€to€what€extent€to€pursue€local€remedies.€How€claimants€will€react€to€the€present€array€of€factors€in€making€the€choice€is€difficult€to€predict.€The€considerations€that€inform€the€decision€to€press€municipal€avenues€are€as€much€strategic€as€jurisprudential.€They€also€cut€both€ways.ÌÌ€€To€recapitulate,€if€local€courts€provide€a€simple€remedy,€so€as€to€obviate€arbitration,€time,€money,€and€other€resources€may€be€saved.€Equally,€an€investor's€failure€to€engage€domestic€mechanisms€of€redress,€may€be€seen€by€the€tribunal€as€imprudent€and€contributing€to€the€investor's€losses€or€business€failures.€[FN209]€Domestic€proceedings€however€may€not€advance€quickly€or€cheaply.€Preoccupation€with€such€proceedings€moreover€will€imperil€the€subsequent€NAFTA€arbitration€if€the€investor€overlooks€the€three€year€limitation€period€applicable€to€Chapter€11€claims.€[FN210]€The€passage€of€time€might€also€make€critical€evidence€less€available.€Further,€the€results€below€may€be€unfavorable€to€the€investor,€and€to€the€extent€they€define€the€investor's€rights€under€domestic€law,€they€may€be€given€persuasive€effect€by€a€Chapter€11€tribunal.€Finally,€in€a€Mexican€court,€reliance€on€the€NAFTA€may€be€deemed€an€election€of€the€domestic€remedy€over€Chapter€11€arbitration,€a€consequence€peculiar€to€Mexico's€implementation€of€the€NAFTA.€[FN211]ÌÌE.€Governing€Law€Indeterminateness€and€Outcome€UnpredictabilityÌÌ€€1.€The€Stakes:€Legitimacy€and€EfficiencyÌÌ€€Thoughtful€students€of€Chapter€11€and€of€adjudicative€systems€in€general€have€rightly€stressed€the€role€of€determinateness„„the€clarity€and€accessibility€of€governing€law„„in€establishing€and€maintaining€system€legitimacy.€[FN212]€In€the€context€of€Chapter€11,€the€consequences€of€achieving€and€maintaining€sufficient€levels€of€determinacy€might€include€increased€likelihood€of€NAFTA„compliant€behavior€by€host€states,€greater€probability€of€settlement€in€the€event€of€breach,€and€fewer€baseless€claims.€With€these€concerns€in€mind,ò ò€*1426ó ó€informed€observers€have€identified€divergence€among€Chapter€11€tribunals€on€questions€of€procedure€and€substance.ÌÌ€€2.€Adopting€Reasonable€Expectations,€Present€and€FutureÌÌ€€One's€expectations€about€clarity€and€stability€of€Chapter€11€law€necessarily€make€assumptions€about€what€can€be€achieved€given€its€dependence€on€custom.€Customary€international€law€remains€fragmentary€in€many€respects€and€its€quickening€mechanism€is€ponderous.€[FN213]€Consequently,€a€realistic€appraisal€of€determinateness€must€account€for€international€law's€diffuse€nature,€a€trait€not€peculiar€to€its€application€under€Chapter€11.€The€precision€superimposed€on€custom€by€the€treaty€text€is€only€a€partial€answer;€the€more€often€relied€upon€bases€of€recovery€found€there,€after€all,€refer€for€rules€of€decision€to€custom.€[FN214]€Critically€important€also€is€the€recognition€that€many€of€the€tests€for€determining€responsibility€are€highly€fact„dependent€and€it€is€often€misleading€to€explain€differing€outcomes€by€emphasizing€apparent€variations€in€the€juridical€language€used,€rather€than€by€reference€to€distinguishable€facts.ÌÌ€€3.€Formal€Mechanisms:€The€Role€of€Binding€InterpretationsÌÌ€€a.€In€GeneralÌÌ€€As€noted€above,€the€NAFTA€drafters€anticipated€unacceptable€departures€from€intended€meaning€by€retaining€in€themselves€the€prerogative€of€conclusively€interpreting€the€text.€[FN215]€That€entitlement€is€exercised€through€the€Fair€Trade€Commission€(FTC),€essentially€comprising€members€of€the€three€trade€ministries.€[FN216]€The€governing€law€mandate€to€which€Chapter€11€arbitrators€are€subject€therefore€carries€the€prospect€that€the€controlling€text€will€acquire„„at€any€given€point„„a€gloss€which€may€be€different€from€that€they€would€discover€on€their€own.€In€theory,€the€disruptiveness€of€FTC€interpretations€should€be€no€greater€than€when€a€governing€statute€is€amended„„€an€occurrence€standing€judges€face€regularly.€Conceptually,€interpretations€merely€describe€what€has€been€NAFTA's€content€from€its€inception,€and€ordinarily€ought€to€take€effect€immediately.€The€situation€becomes€more€complex€when€counsel,€academics,€and€arbitrators€raise€genuine€doubts€about€aò ò€*1427ó ó€note's€validity,€[FN217]€a€predictable€turn€of€events€when€the€note,€rather€than€confirming€generous€exposure€to€responsibility,€arguably€contracts€that€exposure.€[FN218]€Indeed,€the€cynic€will€readily€note€that€thus€far€the€three€governments€have€only€been€stirred€to€action€by€readings€of€their€obligations€perceived€by€them€to€be€unduly€broad.€The€catalyst€for€what€proved€to€be€an€important€episode€in€Chapter€11's€development€was€Article€1105.ÌÌ€€b.€The€Article€1105€ExampleÌÌ€€Hindsight€reveals€that€certain€of€Chapter€11's€provisions,€on€the€day€they€took€effect,€had€more€promise€than€substantive€clarity.€As€a€review€of€the€literature€readily€confirms,€Article€1105€has€been€singular€in€generating€confusion€and€controversy.€[FN219]€Its€guarantee€of€treatment€"in€accordance€with€international€law,€including€fair€and€equitable€treatment€.€.€."€corresponds€to€similar€provisions€found€in€hundreds€of€BITs.€[FN220]€Despite€the€pre„NAFTA€prevalence€of€the€fair€and€equitable€treatment€formula,€Chapter€11€arbitration€appears€to€have€presented€the€first€opportunity€for€authoritative€construction€of€that€clause.€In€particular,€with€seemingly€every€claimant€relying€on€Article€1105,€the€meaning€of€"international€law"€and€"including"€soon€became€hotly€contested.ÌÌ€€The€fundamental€points€of€divergence€related€to€whether,€for€purposes€of€Article€1105,€"international€law"€merely€meant€custom,€or€whether€the€full€catalog€of€sources€listed,€e.g.,€in€the€Statute€of€the€International€Court€of€Justice€(ICJ)€could€be€consulted.€[FN221]€The€closely€related€problem€posed€by€"including"€was€whether€the€fair„and„equitable„treatment€clause€added€to€the€international€minimum€standard€a€treaty€guarantee€assimilating€the€ordinary€meaning€of€"fair"€and€of€"equitable"€or€whether€the€clause€simply€illustrates€one€or€more€of€the€elements€contained€in€the€minimum€standardò ò€*1428ó ó€established€by€custom.€[FN222]€The€distinction€matters€because€if€custom€circumscribes€all€of€Article€1105,€a€claimant€would€be€required€to€go€beyond€ordinary€meaning€to€satisfy€the€possibly€more€rigorous€tests€attributed€to€custom.€[FN223]€Perhaps€not€surprisingly,€Chapter€11€tribunals€adopted€differing€views€on€Article€1105's€meaning€and€application.€[FN224]ÌÌ€€If,€as€has€come€to€be€the€prevailing€view,€Article€1105€is€part€of€a€bundle€of€protections€contained€in€the€minimum€standard,€the€further€question€arises€whether€that€cluster€of€customary€protections€overlaps€with€guarantees€found€elsewhere€in€Chapter€11,€such€as€that€requiring€national€treatment€(Article€1102).€The€question€would€remain€somewhat€academic€but€for€the€Myers€award€on€liability,€in€which€tribunal€(by€a€majority)€found€an€overlap€between€Articles€1102€and€1105€and€truncated€its€Article€1105€analysis€accordingly;€that€is,€it€derived€a€breach€of€Article€1105€from€a€breach€of€Article€1102€analyzing€the€latter's€national€treatment€provision€but€discussing€1105€only€briefly.€[FN225]€For€the€two€arbitrators€forming€the€award,€"the€fact€that€a€host€[state]€has€breached€a€rule€of€international€law€that€is€specifically€designed€to€protect€investors€will€tend€to€weigh€heavily€in€favour€of€finding€a€breach€of€Article€1105."€[FN226]ò ò€*1429ó ó€Though€the€tribunal€acknowledged€that€this€double€effect€is€not€always€the€case,€under€the€facts€presented€"the€breach€of€Article€1102€essentially€establish[ed]€a€breach€of€1105€as€well."€[FN227]€This€mode€of€analysis€as€well€as€the€scope€of€Article€1105€was€subsequently€addressed€jointly€by€the€NAFTA€states,€through€its€Interpretive€Note.ÌÌ€€b.€The€Interpretive€NoteÌÌ€€In€July€31,€2001,€NAFTA's€Free€Trade€Commission€(FTC)€issued€a€statement€(the€Interpretive€Note)€declaring€that€Article€1105€was€no€more€encompassing€than€the€minimum€standard€of€treatment€known€in€custom€and€that€a€breach€of€one€Chapter€11€provision€or€of€another€treaty€does€not€establish€necessarily€the€breach€of€Article€1105(1).€[FN228]€The€instrument€generated€divergent„„and€sometimes€spirited„„views€among€Chapter€11€tribunals€and€commentators,€[FN229]€who€debated€whether€the€Interpretive€Note€constitutes€an€ultra€vires€act,€to€be€ignored€accordingly.€[FN230]€The€trend€seems€to€be€toward€giving€it€legitimacy€on€one€basis€or€another,€and€at€least€two€tribunals€have€declined€opportunities€to€resolve€all€the€questions€raised€by€1105€and€the€Interpretive€Note.€[FN231]€The€distinguished€tribunal€in€Mondev,€demonstrating€the€way€forward,€attributed€to€the€Note€a€reasonable€construction,€which€in€turn€diminished€perceptions€of€NAFTA€government€over„reaching.€It€confirmed€that€Article€1105ò ò€*1430ó ó€encompasses€modern€custom,€as€distinct€from€the€less€evolved€and€less€protective€customary€law€of€alien€protection€that€prevailed€closer€to€the€turn€of€the€last€century.€At€the€same€time€it€did€not€question€the€viability€of€the€Note€in€general.€[FN232]€Subsequent€tribunals€have€expressed€views€largely€concordant€with€those€enunciated€in€Mondev.€[FN233]ÌÌ€€4.€Article€1110:€Unremarkable€or€Untidy?ÌÌ€€a.€Apparent€DivergenceÌÌ€€Compared€to€the€principle€of€fair€and€equitable€treatment„„which€arguably€was€applied€for€the€first€time€in€Metalclad„„well€before€NAFTA,€the€question€of€expropriation€had€been€the€subject€of€copious€literature€and€dozens€of€reported€decisions.€By€1994,€the€volumes€reporting€the€awards€of€the€Iran„U.S.€Claims€tribunal€alone€numbered€about€twenty„seven.€[FN234]€Several€awards,€ad€hoc€and€ICSID„administered,€dealing€with€expropriation€could€be€found€in€the€published€reports€and€much€learned€commentary€graced€the€field.€[FN235]€Given€the€body€of€accessible€precedent,€one€could€be€forgiven€for€expecting€relatively€immediate€unity€as€Chapter€11€tribunals€confronted€Article€1110.ÌÌò ò€€*1431ó ó€Nevertheless,€early€in€the€development€of€the€Chapter€11€docket,€there€surfaced€apparent€differences€in€tribunal€approaches€to€what€constitutes€a€taking„„the€essential€finding€that€triggers€the€duty€to€compensate€under€Article€1110.€[FN236]€In€particular,€the€extent€to€which€regulation€might€be€an€indirect€taking€seemed€to€produce€diffuse,€and€arguably€conflicting,€guidance.€There€is,€in€certain€awards,€dictum€suggesting€that€not€every€business€disruption€attributable€in€some€fashion€to€host€state€regulation€constitutes€a€taking€and€that€governmental€regulatory€imperatives€ought€not€to€be€subjected€to€a€hair„trigger€breach€threshold.€[FN237]€These€passages€might€be€juxtaposed€with€the€oft„quoted€language€in€the€Metalclad€award,€which€states€that€"covert€and€incidental€interference"€which€deprives€the€property€owner€"in€significant€part"€of€its€"reasonably„to„be€expected€economic€benefit"€can€constitute€a€taking.€[FN238]€The€sense€of€divergence€is€amplified€by€Metalclad's€result„„an€award€of€compensation€under€Article€1110„„and€the€opposite€results€in€all€other€Chapter€11€cases.€[FN239]ÌÌ€€b.€A€Second€LookÌÌ€€Language€of€course€matters,€and€as€proof€that€an€appellate€mechanism€is€needed€for€Chapter€11€awards,€the€above€comparisons€of€language€and€results€may€offer€a€prima€facie€case.€[FN240]€It€is€nevertheless€too€soon€to€classify€the€law€of€Article€1110€as€being€in€hopeless€disarray.€Bearing€in€mind€Article€1110's€dependency€on€the€underlying€custom€and€the€fact„intensive€nature€of€expropriation€analysis,€a€measure€of€untidiness€is€fully€to€be€expected.ÌÌ€€With€respect€to€Chapter€11,€the€apparent€differences€in€approach€may€be€merely€cautionary€framing€designed€to€reiterate€what€is€settled€doctrine„„that€regulatory€impairment€of€investment€activities€does€not€invariably€constitute€a€taking€and€that€what€is€required€is€substantial,€permanent€deprivation,€caused€by€acts€attributable€to€the€host€state,€rather€than€to€the€investor.€Indeed,€little€appears€to€have€changed€since€then„Professor€Rosalyn€Higgins€gave€her€first€Hague€Academy€lecturers€[FN241]€suggesting€that„„at€least€as€to€physicalò ò€*1432ó ó€property„„the€substantiality€of€the€interference€suffered€is€at€the€heart€of€the€matter.€[FN242]€Myers,€for€instance,€was€decided€on€the€basis€that€the€interference€in€question€was€not€permanent,€a€rationale€that€the€Metalclad€tribunal€certainly€would€have€adopted€as€a€matter€of€first€principles.€Nor€is€it€certain€that€the€Metalclad€tribunal€would€have€reached€different€results€from€those€of€the€Pope€&€Talbot€or€Feldman€tribunals.€In€those€cases,€quite€plausibly€the€Metalclad€tribunal€would€have€concluded€that€(in€the€words€of€that€tribunal)€the€investor€had€not€been€deprived€"in€significant€part"€of€its€"reasonably„to„be„expected€economic€benefit."€[FN243]€Indeed,€the€Feldman€tribunal's€approach€in€particular,€which€stressed€that€most€of€the€investor's€export€activities€remained€undisturbed,€seems€not€radically€different€from€the€Metalclad€method.€[FN244]€Both€tribunals€looked€to€degree€of€interference,€with€Metalclad„„a€case€of€complete,€permanent€de€facto€taking€[FN245]„„simply€being€at€a€different€end€of€the€interference€continuum€from€Feldman.€[FN246]€Importantly,€though€often€expressing€various€levels€of€discomfort€with€the€notion€that€health€and€safety€regulation€might€oblige€a€state€to€compensate,€no€tribunal€has€announced€an€outright€exemption€for€regulatory€takings;€in€fact,€such€a€broad€exception€has€been€openly€rejected.€[FN247]ÌÌ€€5.€Tentative€Conclusions€on€the€Question€of€IndeterminacyÌÌ€€One's€satisfaction€with€the€levels€of€principled€guidance€achieved€within€Chapter€11€jurisprudence,€of€course,€depends€upon€the€standard€one€adopts.€If€the€test€is€whether€the€process€is€leading€to€identifiable€doctrine€largely€defensible€in€light€of€the€controlling€text€and€law,€Chapter€11€has€functioned€reasonably€well.€After€merely€half€a€decade€of€docket€activity,€relative€certainty€has€been€achieved€about€many€questions€that€were€untested€in€1994.€Indeed,€a€number€of€trend€positions€can€be€identified:€NAFTA€is€not€retroactive;€[FN248]€standard€rules€of€treaty€interpretation€govern€the€process€(there€is€no€pro„sovereignty€presumption);€[FN249]€substance€is€generally€more€important€than€form€(especially€in€relation€to€procedural€questionsò ò€*1433ó ó€affecting€the€claim);€[FN250]€Article€1105€is€circumscribed€by€modern€custom€(which€includes€fairness€elements);€[FN251]€the€customary€law€of€taking€is€neither€made€more€encompassing€[FN252]€by€Article€1110€nor€subject€to€a€blanket€regulatory€exception;€[FN253]€denial€of€justice€is€a€viable€theory€of€recovery€under€Article€1105,€and€the€underlying€test€is€strict€[FN254]€but€not€as€strict€as€that€enunciated€in€the€inter„war€years;€[FN255]€neither€respondents€nor€claimants€should€take€recovery€of€costs€for€granted,€[FN256]€but€Chapter€11€awards€will€carry€interest,€at€a€rate€set€in€the€tribunal's€discretion.€[FN257]ÌÌ€€Even€if€excused€as€being€merely€a€partial€list,€the€forgoing€collection€of€broad€propositions€may€seem€like€a€modest€haul.€Careful€observers€of€Chapter€11€jurisprudence,€moreover,€will€be€able€to€construct€an€equally€long€list€of€unresolved€questions€or€divergent€approaches,€[FN258]€These€inevitable€consequences€of€decentralization€do€not€alter€the€fact€that€there€is€a€process€at€work€that€is€reasonably€effective€in€rejecting€untenable€extremes€and€in€confirming€and€synthesizing€principles€incrementally.€It€is€a€vibrant,€if€occasionally€erratic,€process€sustained€in€part€by€a€vigilant€NAFTA€bar€and€fiercely€independent€arbitrators;€far€from€being€dispiriting„„the€docket€thus€far€ought€to€inspire€confidence€in€the€combination€of€formal€and€informal€mechanisms€at€work.€Whether,€nonetheless,€these€serviceable€mechanisms€might€benefit€from€centralized€oversight€is€considered€under€Section€VI€below.ÌÌò ò*1434ó ó€F.€Lack€of€Process€TransparencyÌÌ€€1.€Policy€Underpinnings€and€ExpectationsÌÌ€€Transparency€means€different€things€to€different€people.€In€a€world€of€televised€judicial€confirmation€proceedings,€cameras€in€the€courtroom,€proliferating€television€judges,€and€entire€networks€dedicated€to€tracking€judicial€proceedings,€Chapter€11€arbitration€may€seem€sorely€lacking.€The€appointment€of€Chapter€11€arbitrators€results€from€a€largely€private€process,€members€of€the€public€are€not€ordinarily€invited€to€witness€the€hearings€and€are€not€privy€to€the€deliberative€processes€of€the€arbitrators,€who€remain€free€to€choose€how€much€extraneous€information€to€include€in€their€written€awards€and€how€to€frame€the€material€disclosed.ÌÌ€€In€the€abstract,€these€restrictions€might€seem€to€undermine€legitimate€policies€favoring€openness.€Certainly€the€public€has€a€legitimate€interest€in€knowing€most€promptly€what€its€government€has€done„„for€good€or€for€ill„„to€generate€the€claim;€press€releases€authored€by€disputants€are€a€poor€substitute€for€raw€data€exposed€in€real€time,€in€the€context€of€an€adversarial€exchange.€So€too€would€legitimacy€of€the€process€and€result€be€enhanced€if€the€rigor€and€care€attending€Chapter€11€proceedings€were€open€to€public€scrutiny€and€indeed€if€some€mechanism€were€in€place€to€regulate€arbitrators€and€sanction€those€who€serve€badly.€As€is€evident€in€certain€popular€documentaries€on€Chapter€11,€however,€exaggeration€on€these€points€is€too€easily€accomplished€[FN259]€and€competing€interests€too€easily€ignored.ÌÌ€€2.€Comparative€TransparencyÌÌ€€Transparency€and€related€system€attributes€can€only€be€measured€in€degrees€and€as€a€matter€of€perspective.€For€the€international€lawyer€accustomed€to€international€commercial€arbitration,€Chapter€11€proceedings€may€be€discomforting€in€their€openness.€An€ICC€arbitration€between€two€private€enterprises,€for€instance,€may€run€its€course€with€the€mere€fact€of€the€dispute€neverò ò€*1435ó ó€being€publicly€disclosed.€[FN260]€Hearings€thus€are€highly€private€matters€and€the€resulting€award,€if€published€at€all,€will€often€be€redacted€to€obscure€the€identity€of€the€parties.€[FN261]€Even€limited€participation€in€the€proceedings€by€non„party€interveners€or€amici€would€be€extraordinary.€Similarly,€the€level€of€interest€in€a€vacatur€action€would€ordinarily€not€merit€streaming€video€transmissions€from€the€courtroom,€as€happened€in€the€Metalclad€set€aside€proceeding.€[FN262]ÌÌ€€By€contrast,€with€rare€exception,€Chapter€11€pleadings,€procedural€orders,€and€awards€now€become€available€seasonably.€During€the€proceedings,€disputant€attempts€before€NAFTA€tribunals€to€enforce€expectations€of€confidentiality€(as€distinct€from€privacy)€have€met€with€only€tepid€success;€[FN263]€the€FTC's€Interpretive€Note,€in€turn,€helped€galvanize€this€trend€and€confirmed€the€parties'€own€commitment€to€liberal€disclosure.€[FN264]ÌÌò ò€€*1436ó ó€The€two€NAFTA€tribunals€that€have€allowed€amicus€participation€on€a€limited€basis€[FN265]€have€set€precedent€likely€to€be€followed.€One€NAFTA€proceeding,€moreover,€has€been€opened€to€the€public,€though€only€with€the€consent€of€the€parties.€[FN266]€While€such€closed€circuit€broadcasts€cannot€yet€be€said€to€be€the€norm,€other€mechanisms€within€the€Chapter€11€architecture€are€partial€proxies€for€unbridled€public€access.€In€particular,€because€representatives€of€the€two€NAFTA€states€not€party€to€the€dispute€typically€attend€the€proceedings€and,€as€noted€above,€are€entitled€receive€the€associated€filings€and€to€make€submissions€on€questions€of€NAFTA€interpretation,€extravagant€and€fanciful€theories€of€recovery€or€defenses€do€not€escape€notice.ÌÌG.€Lack€of€Tribunal€AccountabilityÌÌ€€1.€The€ComplaintÌÌ€€Critics€of€Chapter€11€are€often€ill„at„ease€with€what€appears€to€be€arbitrator€autonomy€unrestrained€by€the€professional€and€constitutional€strictures€associated€with€judges.€[FN267]€Despite€the€theoretical€independence€of€arbitrators,€once€functus€officio,€they€return€to€their€full„time€posts€and„„so€goes€the€argument„„cannot€be€made€to€account€for€the€wake€they€leave€behind.€Moreover,€they€are„„or€hope€to€be„„repeat€players;€their€dependence€on€private€appointments€may€exert€various€influences€on€them,€influences€to€which€judges€are€not€susceptible.€Additionally,€many€of€them€are€cross„over€players,€serving€as€arbitrator€in€one€case€and€as€advocate€in€another,€later€using€the€fact€of€one€role€to€promote€appointments€to€the€other.ÌÌò ò€€*1437ó ó€2.€A€Partial€ReplyÌÌ€€To€compare€Chapter€11€arbitrators€to€judges€appointed€under€a€domestic€constitution€would€seem€to€miss€the€point.€Arbitrator€detachment€is€one€of€the€central€features€that€perpetuates€arbitration's€popularity€in€international€trade.€[FN268]€In€a€given€case,€an€arbitral€tribunal€may€well€pursue€a€far€more€objective€process€than€that€available€in€the€otherwise€available€local€court,€where€myriad€pressures€may€exert€subtle€and€not€so€subtle€influences.€What€is€more,€arbitrators€have€more€accountability€than€may€be€apparent.€The€seemingly€instant€and€wide€availability€of€their€reasoned€awards€and€the€specter€of€dissenting€opinions€encourage€care€and€thoroughness.€That€many€arbitrators€hope€for€further€appointments€would€tend€to€promote,€not€discourage€judiciousness;€the€arbitration€bar€is€in€general€very€attentive€to€such€matters€and€arbitral€appointments€are€often€facilitated€or€thwarted€by€word„of„mouth€information€gathering.€Additionally,€whichever€review€format€obtains,€some€formal€mechanism€is€always€in€place€to€nullify€awards€reflecting€most€true€excesses.€When€vacatur€occurs,€the€award's€flaws„„and€by€extension,€the€arbitrators'€missteps„„are€typically€made€public,€further€discouraging€ill„considered€awards.ÌÌ€€The€kind€of€institutional€accountability€desired€by€certain€critics€more€plausibly€would€result€from€a€standing€body€to€replace€the€present€system€of€single€arbitration€appointments,€though€as€discussed€below,€there€are€reasons€to€resist€a€first€instance€organ€of€this€type.€[FN269]€The€related€question€of€instituting€such€a€panel€as€an€appellate€organ€is€also€considered€below.€[FN270]ÌÌH.€Chilling€Effect€on€Beneficial€RegulationÌÌ€€1.€The€FearÌÌ€€In€the€Methanex€case,€arising€out€of€California's€decision€to€gradually€eliminate€MTBE€from€gasoline,€the€claimant€reportedly€seeks€$970€million€in€damages.€[FN271]€For€certain€critics€of€Chapter€11,ò ò€*1438ó ó€the€case€exemplifies€much€of€what€is€disturbing€about€it.€[FN272]€One€understandable€concern€is€that€the€specter€of€ruinous€liability€might€restrain€lawmakers€from€acting€in€the€public€interest.€The€apprehension€has€been€sufficiently€well€communicated€that€tribunals€have€announced€their€appreciation€for€its€relevance€and€gravity.€The€claimants,€in€response,€have€naturally€emphasized€the€chill€on€investment€flows€that€would€result€if€redress€becomes€illusive€or€under„compensation€becomes€the€norm.€[FN273]ÌÌ€€2.€The€Interim€DataÌÌ€€The€staggering€numbers€accompanying€the€Chapter€11€prayers€for€relief,€though€making€for€sensational€headlines,€are€misleading.€The€specter€of€chilling€effect€is€more€accurately€assessed€by€considering€net€damages€awarded€rather€than€damages€sought.€Approximately€fifteen€Chapter€11€cases€have€come€to€a€conclusion.€Two€have€settled,€five€seem€to€have€been€abandoned€by€the€claimants,€and€eight€have€reached€an€adjudicated€outcome.€[FN274]€Only€Metalclad€and€Myers€have€ended€in€awards€of€arguably€significant€compensation.€In€Metalclad,€the€recovery€(approximately€$17€million)€constituted€less€than€20€percent€of€what€the€claimant€sought,€left€the€claimant€to€pay€its€own€costs€(estimated€to€be€approximately€$4€million)€and€was€conditioned€on€transference€to€Mexico€of€title€to€the€investment€(comprising€a€ready„to„operate€landfill).€The€claimant's€recovery,€moreover,€was€delayed,€and€ultimately€somewhat€reduced,€through€post„award€proceedings€in€a€domestic€court;€the€investor's€additional€costs€of€defending€the€award€in€those€proceedings€were€not€awarded€by€the€trial€court.€[FN275]€S.D.€Myers'€$6€million€(Can.)€recovery,€presently€being€contested€in€a€Canadian€court,€[FN276]€has€similarly€hollow€features.€[FN277]ÌÌò ò€€*1439ó ó€In€Azinian,€Mondev,€ADF€and€Loewen,€after€costly€proceedings,€the€respective€claimants€recovered€nothing,€while€having€to€bear€their€own€costs.€[FN278]€Waste€Management,€moreover,€was€made€to€initiate€its€claim€afresh€after€its€first€effort€was€dismissed€on€jurisdictional€grounds.€As€to€Methanex,€though€pending,€it€is€not€clear€that€the€claim€will€enjoy€success;€it€would€appear€that€a€recent€jurisdictional€ruling€has€lessened€the€claimant's€odds€of€recovering.€[FN279]€In€Ethyl,€Canada€settled€for€$13€million,€perhaps€shielding€itself€from€a€greater€award€and€appreciable€costs.€Relatively€small€recoveries€were€granted€in€Pope€&€Talbot€and€Feldman.€[FN280]€Taken€as€a€whole,€these€results€should€do€little€to€embolden€potential€claimants€or€to€restrain€regulators.ÌÌI.€The€Perception€of€Alien€AdvantageÌÌ€€1.€Dual€SystemsÌÌ€€The€autonomy€maintained€between€domestic€and€international€legal€systems,€though€by€no€means€a€characteristic€inaugurated€with€NAFTA,€has€become€a€point€of€contention€among€some€stakeholders.€It€is€inherent€in€the€notion€of€an€international€minimum€standard€for€example€that€treatment€accorded€nationals€of€the€host€state€may€not€discharge€a€state's€obligations€when€extended€to€aliens.€Similarly,€the€possibly€more€compensatory€regime€governing€expropriation€in€comparison€to€domestic€takings€law€means€that€an€alien€might€be€entitled€to€compensation€under€NAFTA€when€a€host€state€citizen€would€not€be.€[FN281]€The€resulting€potential€for€disparate€standards€to€be€applied€to€competing€enterprise€groups€is€readily€appreciated€beyond€the€ranks€of€international€law€specialists.€[FN282]ÌÌò ò€€*1440ó ó€2.€Potential€Consequences€of€the€PerceptionÌÌ€€a.€Business€PlanningÌÌ€€Just€as€business€plans€are€often€ordered€with€tax€considerations€and€similar€considerations€in€mind,€the€apparent€advantages€of€operating€in€one€NAFTA€country€while€being€deemed€an€investor€of€another€may€well€influence€places€of€incorporation€and€related€matters.€In€a€given€context,€moreover,€those€interacting€with€regulators€on€behalf€of€businesses€may€search€for€a€"NAFTA€connection"„„such€as€foreign€ownership„„on€the€off„chance€that€a€measure€of€regulatory€forbearance€might€be€exercised€in€the€client's€favor.€[FN283]ÌÌ€€b.€Legislative€ResponsesÌÌ€€Proponents€of€the€international€minimum€standard€no€doubt€envision€that€it€may€often€have€an€elevating€effect€on€domestic€standards.€The€two€systems,€of€course,€might€be€brought€into€uniformity€in€other€ways,€such€as€by€eliminating€the€international€standard€altogether€or€by€declaring€that€the€two€are€synonymous€for€all€domestic€purposes.€[FN284]€On€the€international€plane,€either€of€these€would€require€an€amendment€to€the€NAFTA€and€a€NAFTA€Party's€unilateral€eradication€of€the€minimum€standard€doctrine€within€its€municipal€system€would€rightly€prompt€a€Chapter€20€arbitration.ò ò€*1441ó ó€From€inception,€of€course,€the€FTAA€might€be€so€limited,€an€appreciable€regression.€[FN285]ÌÌÓ  ÓVI.€Control€MechanismsÌÓ  ÓÌA.€The€Existing€Control€PatchworkÌÌ€€As€noted€above,€neither€Canada€nor€Mexico€is€a€party€to€the€ICSID€Convention.€[FN286]€Despite€an€architecture€that€contemplates€eventual€access€to€ICSID€arbitration,€proceedings€brought€during€Chapter€11's€first€decade€have€therefore€been€confined€to€the€default€formats€not€dependent€on€the€involvement€of€two€ICSID€parties.€For€the€prospective€U.S.€claimant,€the€choice€thus€has€been€not€a€function€of€which€post„award€regime€was€desired,€but€rather€which€rule€set€was€preferred€(UNCITRAL€or€Additional€Facility)€and€whether€administered€arbitration€was€called€for.€The€manner€in€which€awards€might€be€attacked€did€not€depend€on€the€choice€of€format.€When€one€more€NAFTA€state€ratifies€the€Convention,€there€will€be€threeò ò€*1442ó ó€possibilities;€one€will€be€anational€arbitration,€in€which€domestic€courts€are€largely€supplanted.ÌÌB.€Meager€DataÌÌ€€To€date,€three€Chapter€11€awards€have€been€subject€to€set€aside€proceedings,€those€issuing€from€the€Metalclad,€S.D.€Myers€and€Feldman€tribunals.€Each€award€found€breaches€of€Chapter€11.€Each€set„aside€action€was€lodged€in€a€Canadian€court€by€the€respective€respondent€states.€Metalclad€led€to€a€carefully€reasoned€decision€partially€setting€aside€the€final€award,€though€largely€sustaining€the€monetary€obligation€the€award€carried.€[FN287]€After€the€trial€court's€set„aside€ruling,€Metalclad€and€Mexico€settled;€appellate€level€review€therefore€was€not€had.€The€Myers€and€Feldman€proceedings€are€pending.€[FN288]ÌÌ€€Given€these€limited€instances,€what€follows€is€only€a€tentative€assessment€of€NAFTA's€present€reliance€on€domestic€courts.€Along€with€some€desirable€characteristics,€numerous€potential€flaws€will€also€be€noted.€[FN289]€The€interim€conclusion€I€reach€is€that€an€appellate€body€would€be€preferable€to€the€present€mechanism,€provided€that€body€possesses€certain€attributes,€as€outlined€below.ÌÌò ò*1443ó ó€C.€Positive€Attributes€[FN290]ÌÌ€€A€number€of€laudable€by„products€no€doubt€flow€from€the€NAFTA€Parties'€decision€to€submit€post„award€operations€to€the€prevailing€framework€for€international€commercial€arbitration.€The€New€York€Convention,€time„honored€and€widely€in€effect,€has€been€generally€successful€in€promoting€global€enforcement€of€arbitral€awards.€[FN291]€It€is€part€of€a€dual€and€potentially€duplicative€system€of€control€that€balances€finality€concerns€with€a€recognized€need€for€safeguards.€The€manner€in€which€courts€have€manipulated€that€balance,€however,€has€often€elevated€finality€as€the€norm,€not€the€exception.ÌÌ€€The€scrutiny€entrusted€to€courts€at€the€place€of€arbitration,€effectuated€by€open€court€proceedings,€adds€an€element€of€transparency€to€a€process€which€has€sometimes€attracted€scorn€for€its€private€aspects.€Similarly,€some„„including€the€disputants„„may€assign€added€legitimacy€to€the€Chapter€11€process€by€virtue€of€a€court's€independence€and€adherence€to€a€system€of€precedent,€as€opposed€to€what€may€be€perceived€(though€wrongly)€as€an€arbitral€tribunal's€tendency€to€ignore€the€law€in€favor€of€compromise.€These€elements€of€process€supervision€may€also€add€a€sense€of€rigor€to€offset€the€perception€that€international€law€is€largely€indeterminate.€Even€when€set€aside€is€not€pursued,€the€mere€fact€that€such€a€mechanism€was€available€may€comfort€those€concerned€with€the€possibility€of€unrestrained€tribunals.€[FN292]ÌÌD.€Negative€Traits€and€Potential€FlawsÌÌ€€1.€Incursions€into€the€MeritsÌÌ€€The€arbitration€laws€of€leading€arbitral€locales€within€NAFTA€territories€exhibit€a€uniform€core€in€part€because€Mexico€and€Canada€have€adopted€the€UNCITRAL€Model€Law.€[FN293]€The€Model€Law€in€turn€shares€with€Section€10€of€the€Federal€Arbitration€Act€(FAA)€a€limited€number€of€statutory€grounds€for€vacatur€concerned€mainly€with€jurisdictional€questions€and€procedural€fairness.€Neither€the€FAA€norò ò€*1444ó ó€the€Model€Law€expressly€authorizes€judicial€excursions€into€the€merits€of€an€award.€But€as€the€Metalclad€decision€suggests,€even€when€limited€to€questions€of€arbitral€excess,€courts€may€define€their€role€so€broadly€as€to€firmly€abut€the€boundary€between€merits€review€and€mere€consideration€of€the€tribunal's€mandate.€[FN294]ÌÌ€€Further,€at€least€in€the€case€of€the€FAA,€courts€have€sometimes€embraced€non„statutory€grounds€for€vacatur,€such€as€some€variant€of€the€"manifest€disregard"€doctrine.€[FN295]€The€autonomy€enjoyed€among€circuits€moreover€has€led€to€variations€in€the€availability€of€non„statutory€grounds€and€in€the€construction€of€Section€10€in€general.ò ò€*1445ó ó€Added€to€these€potentially€outcome„affecting€differences€may€be€genuine€questions€about€the€FAA's€applicability€to€NAFTA€awards€and€potential€confusion€in€applicable€law€engendered€by€an€attacking€party's€apparent€choice€of€U.S.€courts€in€some€settings.€[FN296]ÌÌ€€2.€Systemic€VariationsÌÌ€€The€place€of€arbitration,€and€hence€the€courts€that€will€process€set„aside€motions,€may€affect€numerous€other€elements€conceivably€producing€for€one€side€a€strategic€advantage.€Among€these€are:€practice€of€law€restrictions€(and€the€corresponding€need€for€local€counsel),€rules€governing€third€party€intervention€and€amicus€filings,€[FN297]€the€availability€of€appeal,€the€speed€with€which€the€docket€advances,€the€ability€to€avoid€certain€judges,€policies€concerning€cameras€in€the€courtroom,€rules€as€to€costs,€and€the€relative€expertise€of€the€local€bench€and€bar€in€the€law€of€international€investment,€treaties€and€commercial€arbitration.ÌÌ€€3.€Perceptions€Regarding€NeutralityÌÌ€€Numerous€factors€in€the€pre„award€mechanisms€established€under€Chapter€11€promote€systemic€neutrality€and€hence,€to€that€degree,€legitimacy.€That€tribunals€have€designated€seats€of€arbitration€in€the€territory€of€a€given€respondent€state€has€thus€far€not€affected€the€pre„award€stages€of€an€arbitration;€the€courts€have€not€been€called€on€to€intervene€in€any€way€and€Section€B€in€combination€with€the€respective€rule€formulae€have€formed€a€sufficiently€comprehensive€procedural€regime€that€references€to€the€lex€loci€arbitri€have€not€been€common.ÌÌ€€In€the€post„award€setting,€by€contrast,€the€local€arbitration€law€and€courts€do€matter.€Under€the€present€arrangement,€as€happened€in€Myers,€the€respondent€state€will€be€entitled€to€bring€its€set„aside€action€in€its€own€courts€if€the€seat€of€the€arbitration€is€within€its€territory.€[FN298]€Though€judicial€independence€is€doctrinally€well€established€in€each€of€the€NAFTA€states,€an€investor€made€to€defend€its€award€in€the€courts€of€the€host€state€might€reasonably€speculateò ò€*1446ó ó€about€what€nuanced€pressures€have€infected€the€process.€At€a€minimum,€appearances€suffer.€[FN299]ÌÌE.€Improving€Control€Mechanisms:€Abstract€CharacteristicsÌÌ€€1.€Overarching€Importance€and€Abstract€CriteriaÌÌ€€The€present€system€of€regulating€Chapter€11€awards,€being€essentially€an€adoption€of€the€patchwork€applicable€to€private€arbitration,€is€capable€of€performing€many€of€the€important€functions€entrusted€to€control€mechanisms€in€general.€[FN300]€Though€decentralized,€the€fora€to€which€attacks€and€requests€to€enforce€are€currently€addressed€are€the€same€ones€serving€international€commerce€remarkably€well.€Nevertheless,€many€of€the€arguable€weaknesses€surveyed€above€are€fundamental€to€the€overall€integrity€of€Chapter€11,€suggesting€the€need€for€a€more€specialized,€more€elaborate€mechanism.€Conceivably,€a€jurisprudence€of€increasing€coherency€might€result€from€the€present€architecture,€but€not€elegantly€or€rapidly.€The€eventual€introduction€of€an€ICSID€option€would€only€be€a€partial€answer;€it€may€further€fracture€the€jurisprudence€of€control€and€(because€it€does€not€contemplate€merits€review)€would€share€with€the€present€arrangement€an€inability€to€propound€a€substantive€law€of€investment.€From€the€forgoing€critique€of€Chapter€11's€existing€reliance€on€domestic€courts,€it€follows€that€in€fashioning€an€apt€replacement,€a€number€of€attributes€might€be€considered.€A€tentative€list€of€some€of€these€is€introduced€in€the€sections€that€follow.ÌÌ€€2.€Anationality€and€Neutral€CompositionÌÌ€€A€review€body€detached€from€municipal€court€systems,€especially€those€of€the€NAFTA€states,€would€not€as€readily€as€the€present€system€arouse€questions€about€neutrality€and€independence,€assuming€that€the€jurists€who€serve€are€predominately€nationals€of€non„NAFTA€states€and€are€otherwise€free€of€disabling€connections€to€a€party€or€the€subject€matter.€Whether€any€of€these€persons€should€be€party„appointed,€ad€hoc,€for€the€proceeding€in€question€is€among€theò ò€*1447ó ó€subsidiary€questions€that€arise.€Confidence€may€actually€be€enhanced€if€indulging€what€one€authority€has€referred€to€as€the€"deeply€engrained"€belief„„at€least€among€states„„that€the€ad€hoc€judge€system€has€merit.€[FN301]ÌÌ€€3.€Systemic€NeutralityÌÌ€€Where€a€single,€unified,€transparent€procedure€and€relaxed€licensing€requirements€are€established,€no€side€is€advantaged€by€familiarity€with€the€indigenous€procedural€system.€Nor€would€disputant€resources€necessarily€be€allocated€to€the€identification,€education,€and€retention€of€competent€local€counsel;€each€party€could€enjoy€continuity€of€representation€and€associated€efficiencies.€[FN302]€In€particular,€in„house€counsel€might€play€a€considerable€role€throughout€and€the€outside€lawyer€who€may€have€crafted€the€theory€of€the€case€in€arbitration€could€be€retained,€obviating€the€accelerated€learning€that€often€accompanies€instruction€of€local€counsel.ÌÌ€€4.€Centralization€and€StandardizationÌÌ€€The€potential€for€disparate€standards€and€variegated€results€inherent€in€the€present€configuration€would€abate€if€control€powers€were€vested€exclusively€in€a€single€organ,€enjoying€appreciable€continuity€in€staffing,€and€applying€a€single€standard€to€requests€for€set€aside.€The€same€body€would€assess€requests€to€confirm€and€petitions€to€set€aside€Chapter€11€awards.€Of€course,€if€the€award,€once€confirmed,€or€set€aside,€would€revert€to€the€New€York€Convention€system,€a€measure€of€disunity€would€persist€as€courts€addressed€could€rely€on€local€constructions€of€the€Convention.€[FN303]ÌÌò ò€€*1448ó ó€5.€Predictable,€Manifold€ExpertiseÌÌ€€At€present,€the€judicial€expertise€applied€in€a€first€instance€set€aside€action€depends€to€an€intolerable€degree€on€the€vagaries€of€domestic€court€calendars.€[FN304]€This€concern€would€not€attach€to€an€appellate€mechanism€in€which€all€appointed€to€serve€possess€depth€in€international€law€and€arbitration€doctrine.€Moreover,€in€contrast€to€the€single€judge€panel€typifying€trial€level€courts,€if€three€or€more€jurists€invariably€formed€the€reviewing€panel,€the€risk€of€oversight€or€outright€misadventure€would€be€reduced.ÌÌF.€Standards€for€Set„AsideÌÌ€€1.€Substantive€ReviewÌÌ€€Reasonable€minds€can€differ€as€to€whether€the€body€envisioned€here€should€be€empowered€to€search€for€errors€of€law€or€to€otherwise€consider€the€merits.€A€full€de€novo€procedure€reaching€even€the€tribunal's€factual€findings€would€be€an€extraordinary€mandate€destined€to€produce€protracted€disputes€in€defiance€of€NAFTA's€stated€goal€of€establishing€fair€and€effective€dispute€resolution€mechanisms.€[FN305]€Occupying€the€other€pole€might€be€a€mandate€built€upon€the€exclusive€criteria€of€the€Model€Law€(which€in€turn€are€chiefly€derived€from€the€New€York€Convention's€refusal€grounds).€[FN306]€A€middle€ground€would€require€reviewers€to€accept€a€tribunal's€factual€findings€but€would€allow€them€to€apply€the€Model€Law€grounds€augmented€by€an€error€of€law€prong.€The€latter€might€be€refined€to€varying€degrees€by€insisting,€for€example,€that€set€aside€only€occur€for€"manifest"€or€"serious"€or€"fundamental"€or€"prejudicial"€errors€of€law.ÌÌò ò€€*1449ó ó€2.€Substantive€Review:€Competing€InterestsÌÌ€€a.€The€International€Commercial€Arbitration€ModelÌÌ€€To€extend€review€only€to€Model€Law„like€grounds€would€have€several€virtues.€It€would€be€consistent€with€the€overwhelming€trend€toward€excluding€substantive€review€reflected€in€the€Model€Law€and€in€modern€arbitration€statutes.€By€making€set„aside€theories€less€numerous,€it€would€promote€finality€to€a€greater€degree€than€expanded€review,€reducing€the€overall€cost€burden€shouldered€by€the€disputants.€A€mandate€confined€to€the€Model€Law€grounds€would€benefit€from€the€jurisprudence€developing€in€the€dozens€of€Model€Law€states€and,€by€analogy,€under€the€New€York€Convention.ÌÌ€€b.€Prolonged€IndeterminacyÌÌ€€To€preclude€substantive€review€would€forego€one€mechanism€for€addressing€the€disunity€in€NAFTA€law€somewhat€evident€in€the€awards.€An€authoritative€body€enunciating€the€content€of€customary€international€law€[FN307]€and€construing€provisions€common€to€many€BITs€would€produce€benefits€well€beyond€NAFTA.€Further,€the€fact€that€substantive€review€is€available€to€correct€errant€awards€might€promote€use€of€sole€arbitrator€tribunals,€thus€presumably€reducing€costs€and€occasionally€enhancing€speed€and€simplifying€procedure.€[FN308]ÌÌG.€Advisory€and€Remedial€PowersÌÌ€€If€the€appellate€organ€is€given€substantive€review,€it€would€seem€feasible€also€to€allow€interim€tribunal€requests€for€advisory€interpretations€on€questions€of€law.€Among€the€subsidiary€questions€raised€by€this€prospect€are:€would€the€tribunal€alone,€or€the€disputants€also,€be€allowed€to€petition€for€advice?€Could€the€tribunal€advance€the€arbitration€while€awaiting€the€result?€Would€non„disputant€NAFTA€parties€also€be€entitled€to€submit€questions€prompted€by€a€given€proceeding?€Would€such€references€be€whollyò ò€*1450ó ó€discretionary€on€the€part€of€tribunals,€or€would€an€obligation€be€triggered€by€e.g.,€a€joint€disputant€request?ÌÌ€€A€second€cluster€of€questions€relate€to€the€remedial€powers€an€appellate€body€should€have.€The€forfeiture€and€inefficiency€that€vacatur€brings€argues€for€powers€of€remission,€such€as€those€found€in€Article€34€of€the€Model€Law.€[FN309]€Absent€fundamental€problems€of€tribunal€jurisdiction€or€independence,€it€will€often€be€the€most€efficient€avenue€for€the€reviewers€to€identify€a€concern€and€to€remit€it€to€the€tribunal€to€"resume€the€arbitral€proceeding€or€to€take€such€other€action€as€in€the€arbitral€tribunal's€opinion€will€eliminate€the€grounds€for€setting€aside."€[FN310]€Little€harm€would€be€done€by€also€granting€an€incidental€power€to€correct€clerical€errors,€though€this€might€be€predicated€on€the€petitioner€having€exhausted€procedures€for€correction€under€the€governing€rules.ÌÌH.€Completing€ICSID€ParticipationÌÌ€€Upon€ratification€of€the€ICSID€Convention€by€Mexico€and€Canada,€a€number€of€the€problems€associated€with€domestic€court€review€of€Chapter€11€awards€would€evaporate,€at€least€in€cases€in€which€ICSID€arbitration€is€chosen.€Where€the€claim€was€properly€brought€under€the€ICSID€Convention,€attacks€on€the€ultimate€award€would€be€processed€by€ICSID's€internal€annulment€machinery€and€not€by€domestic€courts€at€the€arbitration's€designated€seat.€[FN311]€Because€the€place€(seat)€of€arbitration€would€lose€its€meaning€for€control€purposes,€the€perceived€variations€to€be€found€among€domestic€venues€would€be€largely€irrelevant,€unless€the€claimant€had€chosen€the€UNCITRAL€option.€The€standard€procedural€debates€about€the€location€of€hearing€and€other€meetings€could€focus€on€the€balance€of€conveniences,€uncomplicated€by€asserted€deficiencies€in€one€potential€lex€arbitri€in€comparison€to€another.€In€many€instances,€such€debates€would€be€far€less€contentious€than€when€place€serves€its€usual€function€of€supplying€trail€judges,€and€providing€grounds€for€vacatur,€rules€for€intervention,€standards€for€appeal,€and€guidelines€concerning€costs.€[FN312]ÌÌ€€Full€ICSID€participation,€of€course,€would€not€fully€eliminate€domestic€court€involvement€in€the€Chapter€11€process.€First,€domestic€courts€may€be€requested€to€recognize€and€enforce€ICSID€awards,€and€to€that€extent€domestic€machinery€may€be€invoked€upon€occasion.€Claimants,€moreover,€would€retain€the€right€to€bring€their€claims€as€UNCITRAL€Rules€proceedings,€in€lieu€of€ICSID€arbitration.€[FN313]ò ò€*1451ó ó€Consequently,€assuming€the€UNCITRAL€option€retains€its€popularity,€the€Chapter€11€docket€will€produce€some€awards€governed€by€a€domestic€lex€arbitri€(with€its€manifold€bases€for€attack)€and€others„„ICSID€Convention€awards„„subject€only€to€such€rules€of€sovereign€immunity€from€execution€as€may€apply€at€the€place€of€enforcement.€[FN314]€In€the€latter€case,€domestic€courts€could€not€properly€entertain€a€vacatur€proceeding.€[FN315]ÌÌ€€The€two„track€docket€just€described„„though€still€decentralized„„seems€more€satisfying€than€the€present€regime€because€claimants€are€provided€a€meaningful€alternative€to€domestic€courts€and€the€potential€for€post„award€trial€court€maneuvering€would€be€retained€by€choice.€Any€inefficiencies€befalling€respondent€states€in€having€two€somewhat€different€domains€in€which€to€attack€and€defend€are€the€natural€result€of€inducements€purposefully€extended€to€investors.ÌÌI.€Standing€Appellate€BodiesÌÌ€€1.€ICJ€ChamberÌÌ€€Putting€aside€obvious€problems€of€jurisdiction€ratione€personae,€an€ICJ€Chamber€established€to€review€investment€awards€would€have€several€apparent€virtues.€In€addition€to€meeting€the€criterion€of€centralization,€the€court€is€a€standing€body€with€continuity€of€membership.€[FN316]€No€new€appointment€process€would€be€necessary,€except€as€may€be€required€to€form€the€chamber.€The€court's€members€are€independent,€and€possess,€ex€hypothesi,€considerable€public€international€law€expertise.€Even€if€merits€review€were€excluded€from€the€appellate€mandate,€the€oft„raised€cluster€of€questions€regarding€excess€of€mandate€will€typically€be€a€function€of€treaty€interpretation.ÌÌ€€Though€the€NAFTA€docket€alone€might€not€warrant€founding€a€new€chamber,€the€inauguration€of€the€FTAA€should€present€ample€reason€for€the€effort.€Indeed,€there€is€no€apparent€reason€why€the€chamber€could€not€be€open€to€investment€awards€in€general,€[FN317]ò ò€*1452ó ó€provided€the€requisite€change€in€the€ICJ€Statute„„to€accommodate€mixed€disputes„„could€be€accomplished.ÌÌ€€2.€The€PCA€VariationÌÌ€€The€jurisdictional€limitations€complicating€the€ICJ€Chamber€concept€might€be€avoided€by€inaugurating€the€appellate€chamber€under€the€auspices€of€the€Permanent€Court€of€Arbitration€(PCA),€whose€initiatives€in€recent€years€have€included€adopting€procedures€for€mixed€arbitration€based€on€the€UNCITRAL€Arbitration€Rules.€[FN318]€Certain€currently„serving€and€retired€ICJ€judges,€among€other€jurists,€could€be€designated€to€serve€as€chambers€of€three€or€five.€The€common€Peace€Palace€location€of€the€PCA€and€ICJ€would€facilitate€efficient€dual€service€by€the€chamber's€jurists.€The€two€bodies'€institutional€know„how€could€be€combined,€presumably€making€for€fewer€administrative€questions€of€first€impression.ÌÌJ.€The€Merits€of€a€Standing€First€Instance€TribunalÌÌ€€It€might€be€supposed€that€the€same€attributes€that€recommend€a€standing€appellate€body€for€Chapter€11€awards€argue€for€replacing€non„permanent€tribunals€completely.€That€is,€why€not€submit€all€alleged€breaches€of€the€NAFTA„„and€perhaps€the€FTAA„„to€a€standing€adjudicative€organ€that€could€develop€a€uniform€law€of€investment,€benefited€by€institutional€memory,€synergism€among€tribunal€members€and€similar€properties?€Despite€a€certain€attractiveness,€several€points€might€be€made€in€opposition€to€this€idea.ÌÌ€€First,€the€parties'€power€to€select€arbitrators€to€fit€the€dispute€in€question€promotes€legitimacy€by€enabling€a€match€between€fact„finders€and€the€subject€matter€in€dispute.€One€can€foresee€for€example€a€setting€which€a€tribunal€chair€fluent€in€French,€or€versed€in€the€usages€of€petroleum€concessions,€might€be€deemed€by€both€parties€indispensable€to€a€correct€understanding€of€key€testimony€and€documentation.€Second,€being€able€to€submit€disputes€to€a€relativelyò ò€*1453ó ó€unlimited€roster€of€qualified€persons„„the€present€model„„allows€many€cases€to€advance€apace€simultaneously.€[FN319]ÌÌÓ  ÓV.€ConclusionÌÓ  ÓÌ€€NAFTA€Chapter€11€remains€in€its€infancy€and€full€of€promise.€Those€accustomed€to€mixed€arbitration€find€Chapter€11's€innovations€to€be€mildly€sensational,€not€revolutionary.€The€first€ten€years€have€witnessed€sufficient€tinkering€with€the€process€through€available€mechanisms€that€many€of€the€attacks€launched€during€Chapter€11's€most€fledgling€operations€should€by€now€have€lost€much€of€their€energy.ÌÌ€€While€Chapter€11€maintains€formal€and€informal€mechanisms€that€exert€a€unifying€influence€on€substance€and€procedure,€there€is€reason€to€hold€that€an€appellate€mechanism€of€some€kind€would€be€beneficial.€Despite€what€some€observers€might€hope€for,€the€objective€of€such€a€body€would€not€be€to€rectify€international€law€by€consulting€a€domestic€law€more€familiar€and€comforting€to€the€populous€at€large.€Rather,€it€should€be€to€create€unity€of€expectations€in€those€that€invoke€Chapter€11's€disputes€machinery,€and€if€properly€authorized,€to€enunciate€a€substantive€jurisprudence€coherent€enough€to€facilitate€business€and€governmental€planning€and€to€aid€in€the€development€of€a€general€law€of€foreign€direct€investment.€Regardless,€the€increasingly€topical€appellate€body€notion,€not€original€to€this€essay,€[FN320]€poses€numerous€questions€that€require€further€study.€Some€of€these€have€been€introduced€above,€but€a€comprehensive€treatment€of€the€subject€will€require€a€far€more€rigorous€examination€than€has€been€possible€in€this€tour€d'€horizon.ÌÌ€€Still,€some€of€Chapter€11's€features€remain€untested,€such€as€that€potentially€available€to€accommodate€multiple€claims.€[FN321]€The€latter€should€be€of€particular€interest€when€the€amounts€inò ò€*1454ó ó€controversy€are€relatively€low,€[FN322]€and€the€need€for€more€streamlined€procedures€great.€[FN323]€Too,€there€is€the€prospect€that€ICSID€Convention€arbitration€will€eventually€become€available,€bringing€with€it€new€intersections€among€regimes,€new€choices,€and€new€challenges.ÌÌÓ  Óò ò*1455ó ó€TABLESÌÓ  ÓÌTable€1:€Seats€(Places)€of€ArbitrationÌÌÓ  ÓTABULAR€OR€GRAPHIC€MATERIAL€SET€FORTH€AT€THIS€POINT€IS€NOT€DISPLAYABLEÌÓ  ÓÌò ò*1456ó ó€Table€2:€Duration€of€Arbitration€(from€Article€1119€Notice€to€liability€or€dispositive€determination)ÌÌÓ  ÓTABULAR€OR€GRAPHIC€MATERIAL€SET€FORTH€AT€THIS€POINT€IS€NOT€DISPLAYABLEÌÓ  ÓÌò ò*1457ó ó€Table€3:€ArbitratorsÌÌÓ  ÓTABULAR€OR€GRAPHIC€MATERIAL€SET€FORTH€AT€THIS€POINT€IS€NOT€DISPLAYABLEÌÓ  ÓÌò ò*1459ó ó€Table€4:€OutcomesÌÌÓ  ÓTABULAR€OR€GRAPHIC€MATERIAL€SET€FORTH€AT€THIS€POINT€IS€NOT€DISPLAYABLEÌÓ  ÓÌ[FNa1].€Professor€of€Law,€Pepperdine€University.€The€author€is€grateful€to€Mr.€Hamid€Jabar€for€his€skillful€research€assistance.€Because€I€discuss€the€Metalclad€case€in€this€essay,€I€should€disclose€that€I€was€co„counsel€to€the€claimant€in€the€arbitration€and€was€consulted€also€in€relation€to€the€subsequent€court€proceedings.ÌÌ[FN1].€North€American€Free€Trade€Agreement,€Dec.€17,€1992,€Can.„Mex.„€U.S.,€art.€2203,€32€I.L.M.€605,€702€[hereinafter€NAFTA].€NAFTA€was€brought€into€U.S.€law€by€the€NAFTA€Implementation€Act,€Pub.€L.€No.€103„182,€107€Stat.€2057€(codified€in€19€U.S.C.€3301„3473€(1993)).ÌÌ[FN2].€Contained€in€Section€A€of€Chapter€11,€the€substantive€protections€conferred€resemble€those€found€in€modern€Bilateral€Investment€Treaties€(BITs).€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€arts.€1101„14.€Among€these€guarantees€are€national€and€most€favored€nation€treatments,€id.€arts.€1102„03,€observance€of€the€international€minimum€standard„including€fair€and€equitable€treatment,€id.€art.€1105,€and€full€compensation€in€the€event€of€expropriation,€id.€art.€1110.ÌÌ[FN3].€The€literature€has€grown€appreciably€as€a€result€of€Chapter€11.€See€Bibliography€of€Selected€Works€on€Chapter€11,€17(1)€News€&€Notes€Inst.€Transnat'l€Arb.€6€(Winter€2003)€[hereinafter€ITA€Bibliography].€For€general€treatments€of€Chapter€11's€dispute€resolution€regime,€see€generally€Henri€Alvarez,€Arbitration€Under€the€North€American€Free€Trade€Agreement,€16€Arb.€Int'l€393€(2000);€David€A.€Ganz,€Resolution€of€Investment€Disputes€Under€the€North€American€Free€Trade€Agreement,€10€Ariz.€J.€Int'l€&€Comp.€L.€335€(1993);€Horacio€G.€Naon,€The€Settlement€of€Investment€Disputes€Between€States€and€Private€Parties,€1(1)€J.€World€Invest.€59€(2000);€Robert€Paterson,€A€New€Pandora's€Box?€Private€Remedies€for€Foreign€Investors€Under€the€North€American€Free€Trade€Agreement,€8€Willamette€J.€Int'l€L.€&€Disp.€Resol.€77€(2000);€Clyde€C.€Pearce€&€Jack€Coe,€Jr.,€Arbitration€Under€NAFTA€Chapter€Eleven:€Some€Pragmatic€Reflections€Upon€the€First€Case€Filed€Against€Mexico,€23€Hastings€Int'l€&€Comp.€L.€Rev.€311€(2000);€Daniel€M.€Price,€An€Overview€of€the€NAFTA€Investment€Chapter:€Substantive€Rules€and€Investor„State€Dispute€Settlement,€27€Int'l€Law.€727€(1993);€Daniel€M.€Price,€Some€Observations€on€Chapter€Eleven€of€NAFTA,€23€Hastings€Int'l€&€Comp.€L.€Rev.€421€(2000)€.ÌÌ[FN4].€The€proceeding€was€Ethyl€v.€Canada,€which€ended€in€settlement€after€the€tribunal's€unanimous€award€on€jurisdiction€rejected€Canada's€petition€for€dismissal.€Ethyl€Corp.€v.€Canada,€Award€on€Jurisdiction,€June€24,€1998,€38€I.L.M.€708,€724„30€(1999).€Ethyl,€Inc.€was€a€Virginia€Corporation€that€manufactured€and€distributed€methylcyclopentadienyl€manganese€tricarbonyl€(MMT),€a€fuel€additive.€Its€wholly€owned€Ontario€company€operated€fuel€blending€and€processing€facilities€in€Ontario.€Id.€at€709.€In€1995,€a€bill€to€ban€import€and€interprovincial€distribution€of€MMT€was€introduced€in€Parliament.€Id.€at€710.€Before€the€measure€became€law,€which€it€eventually€did,€the€claimant€had€both€issued€its€Article€1119€Intent€to€Claim€and€the€claim€itself.€Id.€at€728;€see€infra€note€54€and€accompanying€text.€The€claim€alleged€breaches€of€Articles€1102€(national€treatment),€1106€(performance€requirements),€and€1110€(expropriation).€Ethyl€Corp.,€Award€on€Jurisdiction,€supra,€at€711.€Canada's€unsuccessful€jurisdictional€challenges€relied€in€large€measure€on€the€claimant's€premature€initiation€of€arbitration.€Having€not€prevailed€on€jurisdiction,€Canada€settled€before€an€award€on€the€merits€was€issued,€paying€Ethyl€$13€million.€See€Charles€H.€Brower€II,€Investor„State€Disputes€Under€NAFTA:€A€Tale€of€Fear€and€Equilibrium,€29€Pepp.€L.€Rev.€43,€47„€48€n.32,€57„59€(2001).€See€generally€Alan€C.€Swan,€Ethyl€Corporation€v.€Canada,€Award€on€Jurisdiction€(Under€NAFTA/UNCITRAL)€94€Am.€J.€Int'l€L.€159€(2000)€(arguing€that€the€Ethyl€tribunal's€decision€reflected€an€interpretive€methodology€for€future€NAFTA€arbitrations);€Todd€Weiler,€The€Ethyl€Arbitration:€First€of€Its€Kind€and€Harbinger€of€Things€to€Come,€11€Am.€Rev.€Int'l€Arb.€187€(2000)€(discussing€the€experience€of€the€Ethyl€tribunal).ÌÌ[FN5].€At€the€end€of€2002,€there€were€roughly€16€pending€cases,€distributed€among€the€three€respondent€states.€See€generally€http://www.naftalaw.org€(comprehensive€website€collecting€most€essential€Chapter€11€docket„related€materials).ÌÌ[FN6].€See€generally€Free€Trade€Area€of€the€Americas,€available€at€http://€www.ftaa„alca.org/alca_e.asp€(last€visited€Sept.€12,€2003).ÌÌ[FN7].€NAFTA's€arbitral€regime€is€established€in€Section€B€of€Chapter€11.€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€arts.€1115„38.€Section€A€contains€substantive€investor€protections.€Id.€arts.€1101„14.€Section€C€contains€definitions€bearing€on€Sections€A€and€B.€Id.€art.€1139.ÌÌ[FN8].€Under€the€present€ratification€patterns,€the€ICSID€Convention€(with€its€internal€annulment€procedure)€does€not€apply€to€Chapter€11€disputes.€Consequently,€attacks€on€Chapter€11€awards€occur€in€the€courts€of€the€place€of€arbitration,€which€apply€local€grounds€for€vacatur.€Three€such€set„aside€actions€have€been€instituted,€two€by€Mexico,€one€by€Canada„„all€in€Canadian€courts.€Similarly,€since€ICSID€Convention€arbitration€cannot€yet€be€elected,€global€enforcement€of€Chapter€11€awards€depends€primarily€on€the€New€York€Convention,€in€the€manner€of€ordinary€commercial€awards.€See€generally€Jack€J.€Coe,€Jr.,€Domestic€Court€Control€of€Investment€Awards:€Necessary€Evil€or€Achilles€Heel€Within€NAFTA€and€the€Proposed€FTAA?,€19(3)€J.€Int'l€Arb.€185€(2002)€(arguing€that€the€current€Chapter€11€mechanism€hinders€efficiency€through€its€lack€of€centralization).ÌÌ[FN9].€Article€2021€of€the€NAFTA€states€that€"A[n]o€Party€may€provide€for€a€right€of€action€under€its€domestic€law€against€any€other€Party€on€the€ground€that€a€measure€of€another€Party€is€inconsistent€with€this€Agreement."€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€2021.€The€United€States€and€Canada€have€codified€Article€2021.€See€19€U.S.C.A.€ðð€3312(c)€(West€2003);€North€American€Free€Trade€Implementation€Act,€S.C.€1993,€cl.€44,€ðð€6(2)€(Can.).€See€also€J.€Christopher€Thomas,€A€Reply€to€Professor€Brower,€40€Colum.€J.€Transnat'l€L.€433,€450€(2002)€[hereinafter€Thomas,€A€Reply€to€Professor€Brower]€(discussing€Canadian€law€related€to€the€ðð€6(2)€limitation).ÌÌ[FN10].€The€International€Centre€for€the€Settlement€of€Investment€Disputes€€[hereinafter€ICSID].€ICSID€is€a€creature€of€treaty.€See€Convention€on€the€Settlement€of€Investment€Disputes€between€States€and€Nationals€of€Other€States,€Mar.€18,€1965,€17€U.S.T.€1270,€575€U.N.T.S.€159€(1966)€[hereinafter€ICSID€Convention].ÌÌ[FN11].€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1120.ÌÌ[FN12].€In€addition€to€establishing€ICSID,€see€supra€note€10,€the€ICSID€Convention€sets€forth€a€detailed€arbitral€regime€designed,€in€conjunction€with€the€ICSID's€arbitration€rule€formulae,€to€operate€independently€of€national€legal€systems.€See€generally€Aron€Broches,€The€Convention€on€the€Settlement€of€Investment€Disputes€Between€States€and€Nationals€of€Other€States,€136€Recueil€des€Cours€(Hague€Academy€of€Int'l€L.)€330€(1972)€(discussing€the€history€of€the€ICSID€Convention).ÌÌ[FN13].€That€is,€strictly€speaking€no€ICSID€format€exists€to€accommodate€investment€disputes€where€neither€state€implicated€is€an€ICSID€Convention€party.€The€restriction€means€that,€at€present,€Canadian€and€Mexican€investors€are€limited€to€UNCITRAL€arbitration€where,€respectively,€Mexico€or€Canada€are€the€respondent€states.€See€Arbitration€(Additional€Facility)€Rules,€art.€2,€at€http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSID_Addl_English.pdf€[hereinafter€Additional€Facility€Rules].€There€are€indications€that€ICSID€is€prepared€to€help€administer€NAFTA€arbitrations€under€the€UNCITRAL€Rules,€which€would€mitigate€the€effects€of€limited€treaty€membership.€When€another€NAFTA€state€ratifies€the€ICSID€Convention,€the€Chapter€11€docket€will€become€potentially€more€diverse;€proceedings€under€three€regimes„„the€two€ICSID€offerings€and€UNCITRAL€Rules€arbitration€„„will€be€possible.€There€will,€in€that€case,€invariably€be€a€choice€of€regimes.€Assuming,€for€example,€that€Canada€ratifies€the€Convention,€a€Canadian€investor€seeking€arbitration€with€the€United€States€may€designate€either€UNCITRAL€Rules€or€ICSID€arbitration€(just€as€a€U.S.€investor€could€against€Canada).€A€Mexican€investor€bringing€claims€against€the€United€States€or€Canada,€by€contrast,€would€be€able€to€proceed€under€ICSID's€Additional€Facility,€or€under€the€UNCITRAL€Rules,€but€not€under€the€Convention€(assuming€Mexico€remained€a€non„ICSID€Convention€Party).ÌÌ[FN14].€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1118.ÌÌ[FN15].€Id.€art.€1119.ÌÌ[FN16].€Id.ÌÌ[FN17].€Id.ÌÌ[FN18].€Id.€art.€1120.ÌÌ[FN19].€Id.€arts.€1116„17.ÌÌ[FN20].€See€supra€note€13.ÌÌ[FN21].€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1121(3).ÌÌ[FN22].€The€waiver€requirement€applies€to€damage€suits.€Excepted€therefore€from€the€waiver€requirement€are€"proceedings€for€injunctive,€declaratory€or€other€extraordinary€relief,€not€involving€the€payment€of€damages,€before€an€administrative€tribunal€or€court€under€the€law€of€the€disputing€Party."€Id.€art.€1121(1)(b).ÌÌ[FN23].€See€supra€note€4€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN24].€See€infra€note€54€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN25].€NAFTA€Chapter€20€contemplates€inter„state€arbitration€and€sets€forth€a€corresponding€regime.€See€David€A.€Gantz,€Government„to„Government€Dispute€Resolution€Under€NAFTA's€Chapter€20:€A€Commentary€on€the€Process,€11€Am.€Rev.€Int'l€Arb.€481,€488„510€(2000)€(discussing€the€Chapter€20€arbitration€mechanism€and€the€Model€Rules€of€Procedure).ÌÌ[FN26].€For€similar€reflections€upon€the€Iran„U.S.€Claims€Tribunal,€see€David€Caron,€The€Nature€of€the€Iran„U.S.€Claims€Tribunal€and€the€Evolving€Structure€of€International€Dispute€Resolution,€84€Am.€J.€Int'l.€L.€104,€154„55€(1990).ÌÌ[FN27].€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1123.ÌÌ[FN28].€See€generally€Jack€J.€Coe,€Jr.,€International€Commercial€Arbitration:€American€Principles€and€Practice€in€a€Global€Context€chs.€9„10€(1997).ÌÌ[FN29].€See€infra€notes€286„302€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN30].€NAFTA€Article€1130€provides€that,€subject€to€the€contrary€agreement€of€the€disputing€parties,€the€place€of€arbitration€is€to€be€in€the€territory€of€a€NAFTA€state€that€is€also€a€New€York€Convention€state,€selected€in€accordance€with€whichever€rule€formulation€governs.€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1130.€Under€all€potentially€applicable€rules,€the€tribunal€may€designate€the€place€of€arbitration€when€the€parties€fail€to€do€so.€Under€the€Additional€Facility€Rules,€the€tribunal€is€to€consult€with€the€parties€before€fixing€a€place.€Additional€Facility€Rules,€supra€note€13,€art.€20(1).€Under€article€16(1)€of€the€UNCITRAL€Rules,€the€tribunal€is€to€have€"regard€to€the€circumstances€of€the€arbitration."€U.N.€Commission€on€International€Trade€Law€(UNCITRAL)€Arbitration€Rules,€G.A.€Res.€31/98,€U.N.€Commission€on€International€Trade€Law,€31st€Sess.,€Supp.€No.€17,€ch.€V,€ðð€C,€U.N.€Doc.€A/31/17€(1976).€With€respect€to€designations€of€the€place€of€arbitration,€it€has€become€common€for€tribunals,€after€hearing€the€parties,€to€weigh,€with€some€variations,€the€factors€listed€in€the€UNCITRAL€Notes€on€Organizing€Arbitral€Proceedings.€See€Report€of€the€U.N.€Commission€on€International€Trade€Law,€(A/51/17),€XXVII€Y.B.€of€UNCITRAL€&&€11„54.€Neutrality€is€not€a€NAFTA„mandated€factor€in€the€designation€process,€though€in€Metalclad„„an€Additional€Facility€proceeding€between€an€American€claimant€and€Mexico„„the€tribunal,€citing€neutrality€considerations,€selected€Vancouver,€British€Columbia.€Metalclad€Corp.€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€Aug.€30,€2000,€at€www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/awards.htm.€See€also€Ethyl€Corp.€v.€Canada,€Award€on€Place€of€Arbitration,€Nov.€28,€1997,€at€http://€www.naftalaw.org€(tribunal€considered€UNCITRAL€Notes'€&€22€factors€and€neutrality€in€deciding€upon€Toronto).ÌÌ[FN31].€See,€e.g.,€Georges€R.€Delaume,€Sovereign€Immunity€and€Transnational€Arbitration,€in€Contemporary€Problems€in€International€Arbitration€313,€313€(Julian€D.M.€Lew€ed.,€1986)€("[t]he€presence€of€a€state€as€a€party€to€arbitral€proceedings€gives€a€particular€colouration€to€the€arbitral€process€[manifest€in]€...€a€number€of€original€issues").€See€generally€Coe,€supra€note€28,€ch.€13.€Questions€and€topics€regularly€arise€in€Chapter€11€that€would€not€likely€be€involved€in€a€commercial€arbitration€not€involving€a€state.€To€mention€but€a€few:€which€acts€with€arguably€private€elements€can€be€attributed€to€a€state€for€assessing€responsibility?€See€generally€Loewen€Group,€Inc.€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€June€26,€2003,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org;€Loewen€Group,€Inc.€v.€United€States,€Decision€on€Jurisdiction,€Jan.€5,€2001,€&&€32„74,€at€http://€www.naftalaw.org.€Should€the€instrument€conferring€competency€on€Chapter€11€tribunals€be€construed€so€as€to€defer€to€sovereignty?€See€Ethyl€Corp.€v.€Canada,€Award€on€Jurisdiction,€June€24,€1998,€38€I.L.M.€708€(1999);€S.D.€Myers,€Inc.€v.€Canada,€Final€Award€on€the€Merits,€Nov.€13,€2000,€at€http://€www.naftalaw.org.€Must€a€Chapter€11€claimant€exhaust€local€remedies?€See€infra€notes€82„87€and€accompanying€text.€What€is€the€scope€and€effect€of€Crown€Privilege€and€who€decides€those€questions?€Pope€&€Talbot€v.€Canada,€Award€on€Crown€Privilege€and€Solicitor„Client€Privilege,€Sept.€6,€2000,€at€http://€www.naftalaw.org.€What€inferences€if€any€should€a€tribunal€draw€from€the€government's€perfunctory€destruction€of€materials€later€sought€as€evidence?€Cf.€Feldman€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1,€Dec.€16,€2002,€&€6€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(addressing€ministry€destruction€of€documents€every€five€years);€see€also€id.€&&€123,€132,€167,€174„78€(discussing€problems€created€by€incomplete€information).ÌÌ[FN32].€See€infra€notes€82„87,€157„58€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN33].€The€investment„related€obligations€assumed€by€NAFTA€states€are€a€blend€of€treaty€standards€and€customary€rules€incorporated€expressly€or€implicitly€by€reference.€Thus,€in€NAFTA€Article€1110,€references€to€"expropriation"€implicate€a€body€of€customary€doctrine€addressing€what€constitutes€a€compensable€taking€and€whether€the€conditions€for€lawfulness€of€that€taking€have€been€met.€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1110.€Concurrently,€the€same€article€confirms€standards€that€might€otherwise€be€disputed,€such€as€that€full,€prompt€compensation€(not€just€'appropriate'€compensation€must€be€paid),€that€lawfulness€depends€on€a€public€purpose,€and€that€nondiscrimination€is€required.€Id.€Sometimes€the€incorporation€of€international€law€is€explicit,€such€as€in€Article€1105€which€requires€"treatment€in€accordance€with€international€law,"€a€reference€to€a€customary€minimum€standard€that€regulates€host€state€behavior€in€relation€to€nationals€of€other€states€and€their€property.€Id.€art.€1105.ÌÌ[FN34].€For€example,€Chapter€11€tribunals€apply€standard€rules€of€treaty€interpretation,€which€among€other€principles€take€account€of€a€treaty's€objects€and€purposes.€See€Ethyl€Corp.€v.€Canada,€Award€on€Jurisdiction,€June€24,€1998,€38€I.L.M.€708,€723„24€(1999)€(relying€on€principles€found€in€the€Vienna€Convention€on€the€Law€of€Treaties).ÌÌ[FN35].€See€infra€notes€226„31€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN36].€The€two€non„disputant€NAFTA€Parties€are€entitled€to€make€submissions€on€points€of€interpretation,€and€to€be€provided€with€the€evidence€and€argument€adduced€by€the€disputants.€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€arts.€1128„29.€In€a€given€case€the€claimant€may€perceive€that€it€has€three€opponents,€though€it€is€not€true€that€the€positions€taken€by€the€two€non„disputant€states€invariably€are€the€same€as,€or€even€favorable€to,€those€of€the€respondent.€See€Pearce€&€Coe,€supra€note€3,€at€319„20.ÌÌ[FN37].€In€Methanex,€the€tribunal€determined€that€it€would€accept€written€amicus€submissions€of€a€limited€nature€from€certain€organizations€wishing€to€express,€in€particular,€views€related€to€environmental€protection.€See€Methanex€v.€United€States,€Decision€of€the€Tribunal€on€Petitions€for€Third€Persons€to€Intervene€as€"Amici€Curiae,"€Jan.€15,€2001,€&&€47„53,€at€http://€www.naftalaw.org.€The€United€Parcel€Service€v.€Canada€tribunal,€in€principle,€also€authorized€limited,€written€amici€submissions,€subject€to€strictures€to€be€established€in€consultation€with€the€disputants.€See€United€Parcel€Service€of€America,€Inc.€v.€Canada,€Decision€of€the€Tribunal€on€Petitions€for€Intervention€and€Participation€as€Amici€Curiae,€Oct.€17,€2001,€&€73,€at€http://€www.naftalaw.org.ÌÌ[FN38].€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€2103(6).ÌÌ[FN39].€Id.€arts.€1502(3)(a),€1503(2).ÌÌ[FN40].€See,€e.g.,€ADF€Group€Inc.€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/00/1,€Jan.€9,€2003,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.€In€ADF€a€Canadian€supplier€of€processed€steel€wished€to€participate€in€a€state€highway€project.€Its€business€plan€was€frustrated€by€federal€"buy€American"€regulations„„€implemented€through€the€state€of€Virginia„„which€required€that€the€claimant€fabricate€in€the€United€States€the€steel€to€be€supplied€for€the€project.€The€tenability€of€the€claim€depended€in€part€on€the€applicability€of€NAFTA€Article€1108(7)€which€exempts€"procurement€by€a€Party"€from€Chapter€11's€guarantees€of€national€and€most€favored€nation€treatment€and€from€its€restrictions€on€performance€requirements.€The€specific€question€was€whether€procurement€by€the€Commonwealth€of€Virginia€constituted€"procurement€by€a€Party."€The€tribunal€ruled€that€it€did,€so€that€the€exemption€reached€Virginia's€policies.€Id.€&€199.ÌÌ[FN41].€See€Metalclad€Corp.€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/€97/1,€Aug.€30,€2000,€at€http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/awards.htm.€Metalclad€was€the€first€Chapter€11€claim€filed€against€Mexico€and€the€first€proceeding€initiated€under€the€Additional€Facility€Rules.€See€generally€Pearce€&€Coe,€supra€note€3.ÌÌ[FN42].€See€supra€note€8€and€accompanying€text;€infra€notes€286„302€and€accompanying€text€(discussing€attacks€on€Chapter€11€awards€in€domestic€courts).ÌÌ[FN43].€United€Mexican€States€v.€Metalclad€Corp.,€Reasons€for€Judgment€of€the€Hon.€Mr.€Justice€Tysoe,€May€2,€2001,€&&€44,€49€(B.C.€Sup.€Ct.€2001),€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.€For€insights€as€to€the€pleading€and€strategic€intricacies€affecting€the€two€alternatives€from€Mexico's€vantage€point,€see€Thomas,€A€Reply€to€Professor€Brower,€supra€note€9,€at€441„42.€Arbitral€tribunals€considering€a€similar€question€under€the€FAA€for€purposes€of€selecting€from€among€potential€seats€have€found€it€unnecessary€to€reach€a€result,€as€the€competing€cities€could€be€said€to€be€served€by€comparable€arbitration€laws€regardless€of€the€FAA's€applicability.€See€Jack€J.€Coe,€Jr.,€The€Serviceable€Texts€of€International€Commercial€Arbitration:€An€Embarrassment€of€Riches,€10€Willamette€J.€Int'l€L.€Disp.€Resol.€143,€153€n.46€(2002).ÌÌ[FN44].€Correspondence€on€file€with€the€author.€See€also€United€Mexican€States€v.€Metalclad€Corp.,€Supplementary€Reasons€for€Judgment€of€the€Hon.€Mr.€Justice€Tysoe€Oct.€31,€2001,€(B.C.€Sup.€Ct.€2001)€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(holding€that€remission€to€the€tribunal€was€inappropriate).ÌÌ[FN45].€See€Jack€J.€Coe,€Jr.,€Metalclad„„A€Retrospective,€NAFTA€Arb.€Rep.€65,€79„80€(2002).€As€to€the€thinking€behind€the€Model€Law's€remission€provision,€see€Howard€M.€Holtzmann€&€Joseph€Neuhaus,€A€Guide€to€the€UNCITRAL€Model€Law€on€International€Commercial€Arbitration€920„22€(1989).ÌÌ[FN46].€As€a€remedial€option€given€to€the€trial€court€under€the€lex€arbitri,€the€power€to€remit€presumably€would€be€unaffected€by€arbitral€rules€that€neither€authorize€nor€expressly€prohibit€remission.€An€opposite€conclusion€would€follow€if€the€proceeding€were€governed€by€the€ICSID€Convention;€in€that€circumstance,€remission€would€not€be€proper€because€the€autonomous€control€regime€established€by€the€Convention€is€exclusive.ÌÌ[FN47].,See€generally€Andrea€Bjorklund,€NAFTA€Chapter€11:€Contract€Without€Privity:€Sovereign€Offer€and€Investor€Acceptance,€2€Chi.€J.€Int'l€L.€183€(2001)€(arguing€that€Chapter€11€is€best€understood€as€"arbitration€without€privity");€Jan€Paulsson,€Arbitration€Without€Privity,€10€ICSID€Rev.€232€(1995)€(arguing€that€arbitration€without€privity€fills€a€void€in€the€international€legal€process).ÌÌ[FN48].€The€relationship€between€Chapter€11€and€other€chapters€is€to€some€extent€moderated€by€express€provision.€Under€Article€1112(1),€if€there€arises€an€inconsistency€between€Chapter€11€and€another€chapter,€the€other€chapter€prevails€"to€the€extent€of€the€inconsistency."€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1112(1);€cf.€id.,€art.€1114(1)€(providing€that€parties€may€take€appropriate€measures€with€respect€to€investment€activity€to€protect€the€environment,€subject€to€the€remaining€provisions€of€Chapter€11).ÌÌ[FN49].€NAFTA€applies€to€investments€existing€on€January€1,€1994.€Id.€arts.€1502(3)(a),€1503(2).€The€rule€that€alleged€breaches€occurring€before€that€date€are€not€actionable€comports€with€the€presumption€that€treaties€are€not€ordinarily€retroactive.€See€Mondev€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/2,€Oct.€11,€2002,€&&€60„€61,€73,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org;€see€also€Feldman€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1,€Dec.€16,€2002,€&€51€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(accord,€reiterating€the€tribunal's€decision€of€December€6,€2000).€The€Mondev€tribunal€disallowed€certain€of€claimant's€theories€of€recovery€including€an€expropriation€claim€that€in€the€tribunal's€view€became€actionable€no€later€than€during€1991.€It€also€limited€the€extent€to€which€a€continuing€breach€might€fall€within€a€tribunal's€jurisdiction;€a€post„1993€refusal€to€compensate€an€investor€for€a€pre„NAFTA€breach€would€not€be€enough.€Mondev,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/2,€ðð€70€("[t]he€mere€fact€that€earlier€conduct€has€gone€unremedied€...when€a€treaty€enters€into€force€does€not€justify€a€tribunal€applying€the€treaty€retrospectively€to€that€conduct").Ì€€The€post„1993€breach€rule€is€to€be€distinguished€from€the€3„year€time€bar€of€Articles€1116€and€1117.€The€period€begins€to€run€when€investor€should€have€become€aware€of€the€NAFTA€breach€and€its€injury.€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€arts.€1116(2),€1117(2).€The€time€when€the€breach€is€deemed€to€occur€is€a€mixed„„law€and€fact„„question.€Though,€as€demonstrated€in€Mondev€a€claim€may€run€afoul€of€both€requirements,€the€same€date€may€not€govern€the€two€analyses.€In€theory€there€could€occur€a€pre„NAFTA€breach€reasonably€not€discovered€until€after€NAFTA€came€into€effect.€For€purposes€of€the€non„retroactivity€rule,€presumably€the€date€of€breach€„„not€the€date€of€discovery„„would€control€and€the€claim€would€fail.ÌÌ[FN50].€Id.€art.€1101.ÌÌ[FN51].€For€example,€are€the€acts€of€local€governments€capable€of€being€€"measures"€of€a€"Party"€?€The€issue€was€broached€by€Mexico€in€Metalclad,€in€part€because€NAFTA's€"Extent€of€Obligations"€provision,€id.€art.€105,€only€expressly€requires€the€parties€to€achieve€observance€"by€state€and€provincial€governments."€The€question€was€not€academic;€a€municipality's€conduct€was€central€to€the€claim.€Metalclad€Corp.€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/97/1,€Aug.€30,€2000,€at€http://€www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/awards.htm.€Consistent€with€the€third„party€(Article€1128)€submissions€of€the€United€States,€the€tribunal€construed€NAFTA€to€extend€to€local€government€measures.€Id.€&€73.€The€Loewen€tribunal€also€reached€an€affirmative€answer€in€relation€to€the€acts€of€courts€in€administering€private€lawsuits.€See€Loewen€Group,€Inc.€v.€United€States,€Decision€on€Jurisdiction,€Jan.€5,€2001,€&&€45„47,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.ÌÌ[FN52].€The€Methanex€case€resulted€in€a€watershed€construction€of€€"measures€...€relating€to:€(a)€investors€...€[and]€(b)€investments."€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1101(1).€The€claimant,€a€Canadian€entity,€produced€methanol,€an€ingredient€in€the€gasoline€additive€MTBE,€which€California€lawmakers€determined€to€exclude€from€gasoline.€The€tribunal€attributed€to€Article€1101€jurisdictional€import,€requiring€it€to€determine€whether€the€measures€complained€of€"related€to"€Methanex's€investment.€The€question€arose€because€neither€measure€was€overtly€aimed€at€methanol,€methanol€producers€in€general,€or€Methanex€in€particular.€The€tribunal€ruled€that€merely€being€affected€by€a€measure€was€not€sufficient.€Accordingly,€as€pleaded,€Methanex's€claim€did€not€satisfy€Article€1101(1)'s€predicate€that€the€measure€prompting€the€claim€be€"related€to"€an€investment€of€an€investor.€Methanex€Corp.€v.€United€States,€Preliminary€Award€on€Jurisdiction,€Aug.€7,€2002,€&€128,€at€http://€www.naftalaw.org.€Methanex€was€allowed€to€refashion€its€pleadings€to€demonstrate€government€conduct€more€specifically€targeting€it.ÌÌ[FN53].€See,€e.g.,€Loewen€Group,€Inc.€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€June€26,€2003,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.€Loewen€involved€two€claimants€(one€corporate,€one€individual),€alleging€injuries€to€two€corporations€(a€Canadian€corporation€and€its€American€subsidiary).€The€individual€investor,€Raymond€Loewen,€claimed€under€Article€1117,€characterizing€himself€as€an€"investor€of€a€Party"€entitled,€by€control€or€ownership,€to€bring€an€action€on€behalf€of€the€Canadian€entity.€That€entity€in€turn€brought€a€claim€on€its€own€behalf,€and€on€behalf€of€its€American€subsidiary.€Id.€&&€1,€9.€After€the€claim€was€filed,€the€Canadian€entity€was€reorganized,€emerging€as€an€American€company.€Id.€ðð€220.€That€left,€in€the€tribunal's€view,€no€Canadian€entity€capable€of€pursuing€the€claim,€despite€the€assignment€of€the€NAFTA€action€to€a€Canadian€corporation€(apparently€formed€for€that€sole€purpose).€Id.€&&€220,€237.€With€respect€to€the€corporate€claim,€the€diversity€of€nationality€required€for€a€proper€Chapter€11€claim,€though€satisfied€when€the€claim€was€initiated,€had€not„„because€of€the€reorganization„„been€observed€for€the€entire€pendency€of€the€arbitration.€In€the€tribunal's€view,€the€real€party€in€interest€had€become€an€American€entity,€thus€breaking€the€continuity€of€nationality.€Id.€&&€231„€40.€As€a€jurisdictional€matter,€the€position€became€as€if€an€American€entity€had€brought€a€Chapter€11€claim€against€the€United€States.€Id.€&€225.€The€individual€claim€ultimately€failed€because€Mr.€Loewen€did€not€demonstrate€his€ownership€in€the€Canadian€entity€on€whose€behalf€he€purported€to€claim.€Id.€&€239.€As€to€the€merits,€see€notes€83,€188„202€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN54].€Article€1121,€under€the€heading€"Conditions€Precedent€to€Submission€of€a€Claim€to€Arbitration"€requires€claimants,€in€writing,€"to€waive€their€right€to€initiate€or€continue€before€any€administrative€tribunal€or€court€under€the€law€of€any€Party,€or€other€dispute€settlement€procedures,€any€proceedings€with€respect€to€the€measure€of€the€disputing€Party€that€is€alleged€to€be€a€[Chapter€11]€breach[.]"€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1121(2)(b).Ì€€The€waiver€is€to€be€Aincluded€in€the€submission€of€a€claim€to€arbitration."€€Id.€art.€1121(3).€A€submission€is€deemed€under€the€UNCITRAL€Rules€to€occur€when€notice€of€arbitration€is€given.€In€Ethyl,€the€investor€was€arguably€late€by€tendering€its€Article€1121€waiver€with€its€statement€of€claim,€rather€than€with€its€UNCITRAL€Rules€Notice€of€Arbitration.€See€Ethyl€Corp.€v.€Canada,€Award€on€Jurisdiction,€June€24,€1998,€38€I.L.M.€708,€729€(1999).€(Canada€argued€that€jurisdiction€was€absent€due€to€Ethyl's€failure€to€submit€its€Article€1121€waiver€with€its€1121€waiver€with€its€Notice€of€Arbitration).€As€with€that€investor's€precipitous€handling€of€the€Notice€of€Intent€and€claim,€the€tribunal€would€not€dismiss€the€claim€on€the€basis€of€the€timing€of€the€submission.€Id.Ì€€An€ostensibly€more€rigorous€approach€to€the€waiver€requirement€was€applied€in€the€first€Waste€Management€proceeding,€in€which€flaws€in€the€waiver€led€to€dismissal€of€the€claim.€See€Waste€Management€v.€Mexico,€Award,€June€2,€2000,€at€http://naftalaw.org.€In€anticipation€of€pressing€certain€domestic€actions,€the€claimant€added€to€its€waiver€an€interpretive€rider,€stating€in€one€of€its€iterations:Ì€€Without€derogating€from€the€waiver€required€by€NAFTA€Article€1121,€Claimants€here€set€forth€their€understanding€that€the€above€waiver€does€not€apply€to€any€dispute€settlement€proceedings€involving€allegations€that€Respondent€has€violated€duties€imposed€by€sources€of€law€other€than€Chapter€Eleven€of€NAFTA,€including€the€municipal€law€of€Mexico.ÌId.€ðð€5.ÌThe€rider's€focus€on€"sources"€was€not€fully€responsive€to€Article€1121's€reference€to€Ameasure"€(not€sources)€in€identifying€the€sphere€of€activities€to€be€waived.€For€a€majority€of€the€Waste€Management€I€tribunal,€it€was€not€sufficient€that€Ano€NAFTA„related€breach€of€international€law"€had€been€alleged€in€the€domestic€proceedings.€Id.€ðð6.€By€the€claimant's€own€admission,€at€least€one€of€the€measures€complained€of€was€common€to€the€domestic€and€Chapter€11€proceedings.€The€form€and€timing€of€the€waiver,€though€required€to€be€proper,€had€to€also€be€matched€by€conduct€consistent€with€the€waiver's€undertakings.€Id.€ðððð27„31.€See€generally€William€Dodge,€International€Decision:€Waste€Management€v.€Mexico,€95€Am.€J.€Int'l€L.€186€(2001).€The€case€was€resubmitted€before€a€new€tribunal,€and€is€pending.€See€generally€Eduardo€T.€Siqueiros,€NAFTA€Chapter€11€Arbitration:€Recent€Developments,€17(1)€News€&€Notes€Inst.€Transnat'l€Arb.€1€(Winter€2003).ÌÌ[FN55].€For€example,€a€survey€of€approximately€550€of€the€more€than€2000€BITs,€ranging€from€perhaps€the€oldest€(signed€Nov.€25,€1959)€to€among€the€very€recent,€reveals€that€roughly€90€percent€have€fair€and€equitable€treatment€clauses.€See€ICSID€Investment€Promotion€and€Protection€Treaties,€vols.€1„7€passim€(1992);€Charles€H.€Brower€II€et€al.,€Fair€and€Equitable€Treatment€Under€NAFTA's€Investment€Chapter,€Proceedings€of€the€Ninety„Sixth€Annual€Meeting€of€the€American€Society€of€International€Law,€96€Am.€Soc'y€Int'l€Proc.€9,€19€(2002)€(containing€a€textual€analysis€of€minimum€standard€clauses€by€Coe).ÌÌ[FN56].€See€infra€notes€268„80€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN57].€See€generally€Pearce€&€Coe,€supra€note€3€(additional€supporting€correspondence€on€file€with€the€author).€Metalclad€has€generated€extensive€discussion,€and€remains€the€only€Chapter€11€proceeding€in€which€the€claimant€received€an€award€under€Article€1110€(expropriation).€Metalclad,€a€U.S.€corporation,€acquired€in€1993€a€Mexican€company€that€held€certain€Mexican€state€and€federal€permits€required€to€construct€and€operate€a€hazardous€waste€landfill.€See€generally€Coe,€A€Retrospective,€supra€note€45;€William€S.€Dodge,€International€Decision:€Metalclad€Corp.€v.€Mexico,€95€Am.€J.€Int'l€L.€910€(2001);€Todd€Weiler,€Metalclad€v.€Mexico:€A€Play€in€Three€Parts,€2€J.€World€Invest.€685€(2001);€Doubt€remained€at€the€time€of€acquisition€whether€the€project€also€needed€a€municipal€construction€permit.€Relying€on€federal€assurances€that€it€possessed€all€essential€permits,€Metalclad€began€construction,€but€was€informed€by€local€officials€that€the€project€lacked€a€mandatory€local€construction€permit.€Those€officials€ordered€cessation€of€building€activities;€the€company€applied€for€the€permit,€but€on€the€advice€of€federal€officials,€openly€continued€construction.€Metalclad,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/97/1,€&&€88„92.Ì€€After€a€federal€environmental€audit€of€the€project,€the€company€and€federal€authorities€reached€an€accord€(the€Convenio)€resolving€issues€raised€by€the€audit€and€establishing€other€details€of€the€landfill's€prospective€operation.€Id.€&&€90„92.€After€construction€was€substantially€complete,€soon€after€the€Convenio€was€published,€local€officials„„after€13€months€of€inaction„„declined€the€construction€permit€on€grounds€that€included€certain€environmental€concerns.€Id.Ì€€Company€representatives€had€not€been€notified€of€or€otherwise€invited€to€the€meeting€at€which€the€application€was€disposed€of.€Soon€thereafter,€the€municipality€initiated€proceedings€against€the€federal€government€attempting€to€block€landfill€operations€under€the€Convenio.€Protracted€court€proceedings€ensued€during€which€an€injunction€prohibited€landfill€operations.€Several€months€after€Metalclad's€January€1997€claim€had€been€filed,€the€Governor€of€the€state€in€which€the€landfill€was€located€created€a€ecological€reserve€encompassing€the€landfill€and€surrounding€areas;€the€reserve's€use€limitations€seemed€to€preclude€landfill€operations.€Id.€&&€90„94,€109„11.Ì€€The€unanimous€final€award€issued€in€August€2000€found€an€expropriation€on€two€different€theories€and€a€breach€of€fair€and€equitable€treatment;€it€ordered€Mexico€to€pay€Metalclad€over€$16€million€(each€disputant€to€bear€its€own€costs).€Mexico€received€from€a€British€Columbia€court€a€judgment€partially€setting€aside€the€award,€resulting€in€a€downward€adjustment€in€the€amount€of€compensation€owed.€Rather€than€pursue€mutual€appeals,€Mexico€and€Metalclad€settled.€See€Coe,€supra€note€43,€at€153€(additional€correspondence€on€file€with€the€author);€David€Hechler,€U.S.€Firm€Gets€$16€Million€in€First€NAFTA€Claim,€Nat'l€L.J.,€Nov.€12,€2001,€at€A€17.ÌÌ[FN58].€In€the€investor's€view,€this€practice€was€consistent€with€Article€1118's€suggestion€that€it€consult€and€negotiate€with€Mexico€before€formally€launching€a€claim.ÌÌ[FN59].€See€Ethyl€Corp.,€supra€note€4,€at€714.ÌÌ[FN60].€The€author€was€contacted€for€comment€by€the€Orange€County€Register,€and€gathered€this€information€by€phone.ÌÌ[FN61].€See€supra€note€57€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN62].€The€pivotal€question€often€is€whether€the€claimant€in€fact€had€an€€"investment"€within€the€meaning€of€Chapter€11.€Investments€do€not€include,€for€example,€"claims€to€money€that€arise€solely€from€commercial€contracts€for€the€sale€of€goods."€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1139.ÌÌ[FN63].€Id.€art.€1101(1).ÌÌ[FN64].€Id.€arts.€201,€1139.ÌÌ[FN65].€Id.€art.€1102€(requiring€NAFTA€host€states€to€accord€treatment€€"no€less€favorable€than"€that€it€confers€upon€its€own€nationals€"in€like€circumstances").ÌÌ[FN66].€Id.€art.€1105€(requiring€NAFTA€host€states€to€accord€the€investments€of€other€NAFTA€states'€investors€"treatment€in€accordance€with€international€law,€including€fair€and€equitable€treatment€and€full€protection€and€security").€See€infra€notes€217„25€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN67].€NAFTA,€supra,€note€1,€art.€1110€(requiring,€inter€alia,€that€direct€and€indirect€expropriation€of€an€investment€be€undertaken€for€a€public€purpose,€without€discrimination,€and€with€prompt€compensation€equating€to€the€investment's€fair€market€value).ÌÌ[FN68].€See,€e.g.,€S.D.€Myers,€inc.€v.€Canada,€Final€Award€on€the€Merits,€Nov.€13,€2000,€at€http:www.naftalaw.org€(ban€on€exportation€of€hazardous€waste).ÌÌ[FN69].€See€infra€tbl.1.ÌÌ[FN70].€However,€the€author€has€been€informed€that€at€least€one€such€claim€is€in€preparation.ÌÌ[FN71].€See€infra€tbl.1.ÌÌ[FN72].€Metalclad€was€the€first€claimant€to€designate€the€Additional€Facility€Rules,€followed€soon€thereafter€by€Azinian.€See€supra€note€41.ÌÌ[FN73].€See€infra€tbl.1.ÌÌ[FN74].€As€is€common€in€international€arbitration,€hearings€and€other€meetings€in€furtherance€of€the€proceedings€sometimes€occur€away€from€the€arbitral€seat€(place).€Metalclad€was€an€extreme€example€of€this€practice;€all€arbitration€hearings€occurred€at€ICSID's€Washington€D.C.€facility,€although€the€seat€of€arbitration€was€Vancouver,€B.C.€Metalclad€Corp.€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/97/1,€Aug.€30,€2000,€P€11,€at€http:www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/awards.htm.ÌÌ[FN75].€One€settlement€occurred€in€Ethyl,€summarized€supra€note€4.€The€other€is€Trammel€Crow€v.€Canada,€Notice€of€Intent€to€Submit€a€Claim€to€Arbitration,€Dec.€7,€2001€at€http://naftalaw.org.ÌÌ[FN76].€See€infra€tbl.€4.ÌÌ[FN77].€Id.ÌÌ[FN78].€Metalclad,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/97/1,€&&€103„07.€See€supra€note€57.ÌÌ[FN79].€Pope€&€Talbot€v.€Canada,€Award€in€Respect€of€Damages,€May€31,€2002,€41€I.L.M.€1347,€1362,€available€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(last€visited€Sept.€12,€2003).€S.D.€Myers€v.€Canada,€Award€on€Damages,€Oct.€21,€2002,€available€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(last€visited€Sept.€12,€2003).ÌÌ[FN80].€Feldman€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€supra€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1,€Dec.€16,€2002,€P€205,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.ÌÌ[FN81].€Regarding€awards€of€costs,€see€Mondev€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/2,€Oct.11,€2002,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org;€Pope€&€Talbot,€Inc.€v.€Canada,€Award€on€Costs,€Nov.€26,€2002,€at€http://€www.naftalaw.org.Ì€€The€factors€considered€in€not€disturbing€each€side's€burden€have€included:€the€lack€of€uniform€NAFTA€practice€to€the€contrary,€the€complexity€of€the€subject„matter,€the€failure€of€either€side€to€fully€prevail,€the€mutual€use€of€wasteful€arguments€and€tactics,€the€embryonic€character€of€NAFTA€jurisprudence,€and€the€good€faith€and€plausibility€of€the€losing€party's€claim.€Mondev,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/2,€P€159;€Pope€&€Talbot,€Award€on€Costs,€PP€8„10.ÌÌ[FN82].€See,€e.g.,€Azinian€v.€Mexico,€Award,€Nov.€1,€1999,€39€I.L.M.€537,€552,€available€at€http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/awards.htm€(last€visited€Sept.€12,€2003)€(claimant€not€entitled€to€seek€before€arbitrators€plenary€review€of€national€court€decisions€under€NAFTA;€denial€of€justice€or€other€international€wrong€must€be€alleged).ÌÌ[FN83].€Characteristic€of€the€high€literary€value€contained€in€certain€Chapter€11€awards,€the€passage€deserves€extensive€quotation.€The€tribunal€wrote:Ì€€We€think€it€right€to€add€one€final€word.€A€reader€following€our€account€of€the€injustices€which€were€suffered€by€Loewen€and€Mr.€Raymond€Loewen€in€the€Courts€of€Mississippi€could€well€be€troubled€to€find€that€they€emerge€from€the€present€long€and€costly€proceedings€with€no€remedy€at€all.€After€all,€we€have€held€that€judicial€wrongs€may€in€principle€be€brought€home€to€the€State€Party€under€Chapter€Eleven,€and€have€criticised€the€Mississippi€proceedings€in€the€strongest€terms.€There€was€an€unfairness€here€towards€the€foreign€investor.€Why€not€use€the€weapons€at€hand€to€put€it€right?€What€clearer€case€than€the€present€could€there€be€for€the€ideals€of€NAFTA€to€be€given€some€teeth?ÌThis€human€reaction€has€been€present€in€our€minds€throughout€but€we€must€be€on€guard€against€allowing€it€to€control€our€decision.€Far€from€fulfilling€the€purposes€of€NAFTA,€an€intervention€on€our€part€would€compromise€them€by€obscuring€the€crucial€separation€between€the€international€obligations€of€the€State€under€NAFTA,€of€which€the€fair€treatment€of€foreign€investors€in€the€judicial€sphere€is€but€one€aspect,€and€the€much€broader€domestic€responsibilities€of€every€nation€towards€litigants€of€whatever€origin€who€appear€before€its€national€courts.€Subject€to€explicit€international€agreement€permitting€external€control€or€review,€these€latter€responsibilities€are€for€each€individual€state€to€regulate€according€to€its€own€chosen€appreciation€of€the€ends€of€justice.€As€we€have€sought€to€make€clear,€we€find€nothing€in€NAFTA€to€justify€the€exercise€by€this€Tribunal€of€an€appellate€function€parallel€to€that€which€belongs€to€the€courts€of€the€host€nation.€In€the€last€resort,€a€failure€by€that€nation€to€provide€adequate€means€of€remedy€may€amount€to€an€international€wrong€but€only€in€the€last€resort.€The€line€may€be€hard€to€draw,€but€it€is€real.€Too€great€a€readiness€to€step€from€outside€into€the€domestic€arena,€attributing€the€shape€of€an€international€wrong€to€what€is€really€a€local€error€(however€serious),€will€damage€both€the€integrity€of€the€domestic€judicial€system€and€the€viability€of€NAFTA€itself.€The€natural€instinct,€when€someone€observes€a€miscarriage€of€justice,€is€to€step€in€and€try€to€put€it€right,€but€the€interests€of€the€international€investing€community€demand€that€we€must€observe€the€principles€which€we€have€been€appointed€to€apply,€and€stay€our€hands.ÌLoewen€Group,€Inc.€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€June€26,€2003,€&&€241„42,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(paragraph€numbering€omitted).ÌÌ[FN84].€Feldman,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1,€&€78.ÌÌ[FN85].€Id.€&€98.€See€generally€Eileen€Denza,€The€Relationship€Between€International€and€National€Law,€in€International€Law€Ch.€14,€1„6€(Malcom€D.€Evans€ed.,€forthcoming€2003)€(uncorrected€proofs€on€file€with€the€author).ÌÌ[FN86].€See€Loewen€Group,€Inc.€v.€United€States,€Decision€on€Jurisdiction,€Jan.€5,€2001,€&&€39„60,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.ÌÌ[FN87].€The€United€States€has€twice€been€named€in€denial€of€justice€cases,€in€each€case€by€Canadian€investors.€As€to€each,€the€United€States€prevailed.€The€first€to€reach€an€award€was€Mondev€v.€United€States.€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/2,€Oct.€11,€2002,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.€Mondev€arose€out€of€a€1978€tripartite€commercial€real€estate€development€contract€among€claimant's€entity€(LPA),€the€Boston€Redevelopment€Authority€(BRA)€and€the€City€of€Boston€(the€City).€In€part,€the€contract€granted€LPA€a€land€purchase€option€with€the€City,€the€exercise€of€which€allegedly€was€frustrated€by€the€City's€failure€to€accomplish€certain€tasks„„failings€said€by€the€investor€to€have€been€promoted€by€BRA.€In€the€resulting€lawsuit,€the€jury€agreed€with€LPA,€issuing€verdicts€against€both€the€City€and€BRA,€totaling€$16€million.€The€trial€judge€upheld€the€verdict€against€the€City,€but€by€JNOV€held€BRA€immune€from€liability€under€Massachusetts€law.€On€appeal,€the€Supreme€Judicial€Court€affirmed€the€trial€court's€immunity€finding€and€overruled€the€breach€of€contract€finding€against€the€City.€LPA's€request€for€rehearing€was€denied€as€was€its€petition€for€review€by€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court.€Certain€of€Mondev's€theories€of€recovery€were€disallowed€on€jurisdictional€grounds.€Its€denial€of€justice€claim€failed€on€the€merits€under€a€fact„dependent€test€enunciated€by€the€tribunal€after€consulting€modern€jurisprudence€and€other€influences.€Claimant€had€failed€to€demonstrate€that€Ahaving€regard€to€generally€accepted€standards€of€the€administration€of€justice€...€in€light€of€all€the€facts€that€the€impugned€decision€was€clearly€improper€and€discreditable€[thus€resulting€in]€unfair€and€inequitable€treatment."€Id.€&€127.Ì€€Loewen€v€United€States€was€decided€in€June€2003,€and,€in€contrast€to€Mondev,€was€based€on€facts€which,€but€for€a€failure€to€exhaust€local€remedies€and€certain€jurisdictional€flaws,€would€have€established€denial€of€justice.€Loewen€Group,€Inc.,€Decision€on€Jurisdiction,€Jan.€5,€2001.€See€supra€note€83,€infra€notes€188„202€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN88].€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.1131(1).ÌÌ[FN89].€For€example,€a€theory€of€tolling€has€been€considered€by€at€least€one€tribunal,€as€a€potentially€applicable€general€principle€of€law.€Feldman€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1,€Dec.€16,€2002,€&€58,€at€http:www.naftalaw.org.ÌÌ[FN90].€See€infra€notes€93,€245„46€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN91].€See€infra€notes€232„50€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN92].€See€supra€note€31,€infra€note€126€and€accompanying€text€(questions€of€attribution).ÌÌ[FN93].€Most€notably€the€Vienna€Convention€on€the€Law€of€Treaties.€See€S.D.€Meyers,€Inc.€v.€Canada,€Final€Award€on€the€Merits,€Nov.€13,€2000,€&€201€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.€See€also€Loewen€Group,€Inc.,€Final€Award,€June€26,€2003,€&167€(discussing€the€Harvard€Draft€Convention€of€Professors€Sohn€&€Baxter€on€the€International€Responsibility€of€States€for€Injuries€to€Aliens€(12th€Draft),€reprinted€in€Louis€B.€Sohn€&€R.R.€Baxter,€Responsibility€of€States€for€Injuries€to€the€Economic€Interests€of€Aliens,€55€Am.€J.€Int'l€L.€545€(1961)).ÌÌ[FN94].€See€id.€&&€149,€153.ÌÌ[FN95].€The€Restatement€is€openly€consulted€less€frequently€than€one€might€expect.€The€Feldman€tribunal€considered€its€provisions€in€relative€detail€however.€See€Feldman,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1,€&&€99„106€(noting€that€both€disputants€had€made€reference€to€it).ÌÌ[FN96].€It€would€be€misleading€to€suggest€that€these€sources€invariably€have€been€studied€sua€sponte,€since€the€submissions€of€the€disputants€drive€the€process€to€an€appreciable€degree.€Nevertheless,€Chapter€11€arbitrators€often€bring€to€the€task€considerable€depth€in€public€international€law€and€they€are€not€expected€to€ignore€helpful€authority€known€to€them.ÌÌ[FN97].€See,€e.g.,€S.D.€Myers,€Final€Award€on€Merits,€Nov.€13,€2000,€&€243,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(Separate€Opinion€by€Dr.€Bryan€Schwartz).ÌÌ[FN98].€See,€e.g.,€id.€ðð€249€supra€note€43€and€accompanying€text€€(discussing€Canadian€and€US€decisions).ÌÌ[FN99].€See€Feldman,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1,€&€58.ÌÌ[FN100].€Id.€But€see€M.€Shahabuddeen,€Municipal€Law€Reasoning€in€International€Law,€in€Fifty€Years€of€the€International€Court€of€Justice€90,€92€(Vaughan€Lowe€&€Malgosia€Fitzmaurice€eds.,€1996)€(among€the€dangers€of€reliance€on€private€law€is€the€tendency€Ato€resort€to€notions€peculiar€to€[a€particular]€municipal€law").ÌÌ[FN101].€See€generally€Maurice€Mendelson,€The€International€Court€of€Justice€and€Sources€of€International€Law,€in€Fifty€Years€of€the€International€Court€of€Justice€63,€79„80€(Vaughan€Lowe€&€Malgosia€Fitzmaurice€eds.,€1996).ÌÌ[FN102].€The€Loewen€Tribunal€opined:Ì€€It€is€true€that€some€aspects€of€the€resolution€of€disputes€arising€in€relation€to€private€international€commerce€are€imported€into€the€NAFTA€system...and€that€the€handling€of€disputes€within€that€system€by€professionals€experienced€in€the€handling€of€international€arbitration€has€tended€in€practice€to€make€NAFTA€arbitration€look€like€the€more€familiar€kind€of€process.€But€this€apparent€resemblance€is€misleading.€The€two€forms€of€process,€and€the€rights€which€they€enforce,€have€nothing€in€common.€There€is€no€warrant€for€transferring€rules€derived€from€private€law€into€a€field€of€international€law€where€the€claimants€are€permitted€for€convenience€to€enforce€what€are€in€origin€the€rights€of€Party€states.ÌLoewen€Group,€Inc.€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€June€26,€2003,€&€233,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.ÌÌ[FN103].,This€includes€repeated€consultation€of€the€ICJ's€chamber€award€in€the€ELSI€case.€Case€Concerning€Elettronica€Sicula€S.p.A.€(ELSI)€(U.S.€v.€Italy),€Judgment,€1989€I.C.J.€15€(July€20).€See€Loewen€Group,€Inc.,€Final€Award,€June€26,€2003,€&€160.ÌÌ[FN104].€Given€the€extensive€and€readily€available€jurisprudence€on€expropriation€produced€by€the€Iran„U.S.€Claims€Tribunal,€one€might€have€expected€within€NAFTA€awards€far€more€frequent€references€to€its€awards.€One€explanation€is€the€broader€mandate€of€that€tribunal„„extending€to€certain€non„expropriatory€property€interference„„and€the€historical€setting€in€which€those€claims€arose.€See€Vicki€Been€&€Joel€C.€Beauvais,The€Global€Fifth€Amendment?€NAFTA's€Investment€Protections€and€the€Misguided€Quest€for€an€International€"Regulatory€Takings"€Doctrine,€78€N.Y.U.€L.€Rev.€30,€30€nn.29„135€and€accompanying€text€(2003).€Additionally,€the€jurisprudence€of€the€Tribunal€has€been€subject€to€a€sustained€disparagement€from€some€quarters,€being€characterized€for€example€as€merely€lex€specialis€with€limited€general€applicability.€See€Richard€B.€Lillich,€Burns€H.€Weston,€&€David€J.€Bederman,€International€Claims:€Their€Settlement€by€Lump€Sum€Agreements:€1975„1995€8€(1999)€("withering€attack,"€albeit€rebuffed).€Among€the€better€one„volume€references€on€the€Tribunal€are€Charles€N.€Brower€&€Jason€D.€Brueschke,€The€Iran„United€States€Claims€Tribunal€(1998),€and€George€Aldrich,€The€Jurisprudence€of€the€Iran„U.S.€Claims€Tribunal€(1996).ÌÌ[FN105].€See,€e.g.,€Mondev€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/2,€Oct.11,€2002,€&€114,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(General€Claims€Commission,€U.S.„Mex.).ÌÌ[FN106].€As€to€which,€see€supra€notes€8€and€13€and€accompanying€text€and€infra€notes€151„52,€accompanying€text€and€authority€cited€there.ÌÌ[FN107].€In€Metalclad,€an€ad€hoc€award€under€the€UNCITRAL€Rules€featured€with€perhaps€surprising€prominence€in€the€arbitration,€and€consequently€in€the€subsequent€set€aside€proceedings€in€British€Columbia.€The€Metalclad€tribunal€found€influential€Biloune€v.€Ghana€Investments,€95€I.L.R.€183€(1993).€See€Metalclad€Corp.€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/97/1,€Aug.€30,€2000,€at€http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/awards.htm€(citing€Biloune€at€207„10,€noting€in€common€government€assurances€about€a€building€permit€and€consequent€construction,€followed€by€forced€termination€of€project).€The€Biloune€arbitrators€had€found€an€indirect€taking,€just€as€the€Metalclad€tribunal€later€did.€Justice€Tysoe€in€adjudicating€Mexico's€request€for€set€aside,€examined€Biloune,€found€it€readily€distinguishable€from€the€case€before€the€Metalclad€tribunal€and€concluded€that€it€could€not€have€been€meant€to€be€the€rationale€behind€the€finding€of€taking.€See€Mexico€v.€Metalclad€Corp.,€Reasons€for€Judgment€of€the€Honorable€Mr.€Justice€Tysoe,€May€2,€2001,€&€80,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.€Tysoe€has€attracted€criticism€for€second€guessing€the€tribunal,€which€had€openly€characterized€Biloune€as€Apersuasive€authority."€See€infra€notes€132„39€and€accompanying€text.€The€Biloune€tribunal€was€highly€distinguished€and€was€presided€over€by€H.E.€Judge€Stephen€Schwebel,€of€the€ICJ,€a€fact€no€doubt€enhancing€the€resulting€award's€attractiveness€as€guidance.ÌÌ[FN108].€See,€e.g.,€Pope€&€Talbot€v.€Canada,€Final€Merits€Award,€Apr.€10,€2001,€&49,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(examining€GATT,€art.€III.4;€TRIMS€and€GATS,€art.€XVII(1„3)€examined€in€response€to€Canada's€argument€that€defacto€discrimination€must€cause€"disproportionate"€harm€in€order€to€be€actionable).€In€an€example€of€procedural€borrowing,€the€Feldman€tribunal€cited€the€WTO's€Appellate€Body€in€ruling€that€when€one€disputant€adduces€evidence€sufficient€to€raise€a€presumption€of€truth,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€other€party€to€rebut€the€presumption€by€competent€evidence.€Feldman€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1,€Dec.€16,€2002,€&€177,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org.€In€Feldman,€the€transplanted€rule€determined€the€outcome,€for€the€claimant€had€set€forth€sufficient€support€for€its€claim€of€sub„national€treatment€to€establish€a€Apresumption€and€a€prima€facie€case"€under€Article€1102.€Mexico,€in€response,€had€Afailed€to€introduce€any€credible€evidence€into€the€record€to€rebut€that€presumption."€Id.€A€majority€of€the€tribunal€drew€the€inference€that€had€equal€treatment€been€accorded,€Mexico€would€certainly€have€supplied€proof€of€it,€rather€than€relying€heavily€on€a€more€technical€and€tenuous€theory€of€defense.€Id.€&€178.ÌÌ[FN109].€.C.F.€Amerasinghe,€Local€Remedies€in€International€Law€(1990).ÌÌ[FN110].€.Edwin€M.€Borchard,€The€Diplomatic€Protection€of€Citizens€Abroad€€(1915).ÌÌ[FN111].€.€Bin€Cheng,€General€Principles€of€Law€as€Applied€by€International€Courts€and€Tribunals€(1953).ÌÌ[FN112].€.Eduardo€Jimenez€de€Arechaga,€International€Law€in€the€Past€Third€of€a€Century,€159€Recueil€des€Cours€(Hague€Academy€of€Int'l€L.)€(1978).ÌÌ[FN113].€.Alwyn€V.€Freeman,€The€International€Responsibility€of€States€for€Denial€of€Justice€(1938).ÌÌ[FN114].€See€infra€tbl.€3.ÌÌ[FN115].€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1136(1)€(only€disputants€bound€by€Chapter€11€awards).ÌÌ[FN116].€As€they€have€been€instructed€to€do€by€NAFTA€itself.€Id.€art.€102(2).ÌÌ[FN117].€See,€e.g.,€S.D.€Myers,€Inc.€v.€Canada,€Final€Award€on€the€Merits,€Nov.€13,€2000,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(Separate€Opinion€of€Dr.€Bryan€Schwartz).ÌÌ[FN118].€See,€e.g.,€Feldman€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/€99/1,€Dec.€16,€2002,€P€6,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(dissent€of€Arb.€Bravo).ÌÌ[FN119].€That€is€not€to€suggest€that€disingenuous€positions€have€been€the€norm.€Though€illuminated€in€part€by€definitions,€critical€words€such€as€Ainvestment"€and€Ameasure,"€are€sufficiently€elastic€to€allow€room€for€good€faith€advocacy€by€claimants€and€respondents€alike.ÌÌ[FN120].€See€generally€Brower,€supra€note€4,€at€84.ÌÌ[FN121].€See,€e.g.,€Mondev€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1,€Dec.€16,€2002,€&€86,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€("[i]nternational€law€does€not€place€emphasis€on€merely€formal€considerations").€The€preference€for€substance€over€form€has€been€evident€in€several€respects.€The€arbitrators€have€often€examined€the€motivation€behind€a€given€claim€submission€requirement,€questioned€whether€its€strict€enforcement€would€be€consistent€with€the€investor€protections€sought€to€be€promoted€by€Chapter€11,€considered€whether€the€respondent€had€suffered€any€genuine€prejudice€as€a€result€of€the€alleged€defect,€and€assessed€whether€rigorously€enforcing€a€procedural€predicate€would€merely€defer€the€bringing€of€an€ostensibly€viable€claim.€See€Weiler,€Ethyl„„Harbinger,€supra€note€4,€at€192„95.€Some€of€the€same€considerations€naturally€influence€tribunals€in€determining€as€a€preliminary€matter€the€exact€content€of€the€rule€invoked.ÌÌ[FN122].€See,€e.g.,€Metalclad€Corp.€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/97/1,€Aug.€30,€2000,€&&€64„69,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(future€reliance€on€Ecology€Decree€signaled€in€claimant's€memorial;€opportunity€to€address€its€effect€given€to€respondent€in€counter„memorial€and€rejoinder).ÌÌ[FN123].€The€web€sites€of€the€NAFTA€governments€and€ICSID€publish€many€important€materials,€as€does€the€NAFTA€website.€See€http://www.nafta.org.€Moreover,€counsel€within€the€NAFTA€bar€tend€to€consult€each€other,€sharing€information€to€varying€degrees.ÌÌ[FN124].€See,€e.g.,€Loewen€Group,€Inc.,€Final€Award,€June€26,€2003,€&€133,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(quoting€with€approval€the€denial€of€justice€test€articulated€in€Mondev,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1).€See€also€id.€&€126€(adopting€the€principle€enunciated€in€Azinian€that€Chapter€11€tribunals€do€not€stand€as€appellate€courts€in€relation€to€domestic€courts).ÌÌ[FN125].€See€Loewen€Group,€Inc.€v.€United€States,€Decision€on€Jurisdiction,€Jan.€5,€2001,€&€35,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(submissions€by€Mexico€on€the€meaning€of€"measure"€and€on€the€import€of€certain€Chapter€11€awards).ÌÌ[FN126].€For€example,€in€Metalclad€the€U.S.'s€Article€1128€observations€confuting€an€interpretation€sponsored€by€Mexico€were€largely€adopted€by€the€Tribunal.€See€Metalclad€Corp.,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/97/1,€&&€27,€73€(local€government€acts€attributable€to€host€state€for€purposes€of€NAFTA).ÌÌ[FN127].€Cf.€Mondev,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/1,€&&€103„27€(taking€note€of€common€ground€among€submissions€of€disputants€and€Parties€in€formulating€modern€test€for€denial€of€justice).ÌÌ[FN128].€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1129.ÌÌ[FN129].€See€infra€notes€131,€217„31€and€accompanying€textÌÌ[FN130].€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1131.ÌÌ[FN131].€The€Interpretive€Note€has€generated€questions€about€the€interpretation€mechanism€itself,€such€as:€when€does€a€purported"€interpretation"€constitute€a€de€facto€amendment€(a€power€not€vested€in€the€FTC),€must€such€interpretations€be€given€effect€in€pending€arbitrations,€and€should€they€have€any€effect€in€post„award€proceedings€assessing€the€award?€See€infra€notes€230„231€and€accompanying€text.€For€arbitrator€discussion€of€some€of€these€questions,€see€Pope€&€Talbot,€Inc.€v.€Canada,€Award€in€Respect€of€Damages€(May€31,€2002),€41€I.L.M.€1347,€1355„59,€and€see€generally€Charles€H.€Brower,€Structure,€Legitimacy,€and€NAFTA's€Investment€Chapter,€36€Vand.€J.€Transnat'l€L.€37,€78„86€(2003).ÌÌ[FN132].€Mexico€v.€Metalclad€Corp.,€Reasons€for€Judgment€of€the€Honorable€Mr.€Justice€Tysoe,€May€2,€2001€(B.C.€Sup.€Ct.€2001).ÌÌ[FN133].€See€Coe,€supra€note€8,€at€198€n.91,€205€n.126€and€accompanying€text;€Coe,€supra€note€45,€at€77„78.ÌÌ[FN134].€Justice€Tysoe's€decision€is€examined€further€at€supra€note€107€and€infra€note€288€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN135].€See,€e.g.,€Weiler,€A€Play€in€Three€Parts,€supra€note€57€(lamenting€invasion€of€merits);€Charles€H.€Brower€II,€Investor„State€Disputes€Under€NAFTA:€The€Empire€Strikes€Back,€40€Colum.€J.€Transnat'l€L.€43€(2001)€(referring€to€Tysoe's€review€as,€inter€alia,€"heightened").€But€see€generally€Thomas,€Reply€to€Professor€Brower,€supra€note€9€(disputing€that€Justice€Tysoe€conducted€a€"heightened"€review).ÌÌ[FN136].€See,€e.g.,€Feldman€v.€Mexico,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/€99/1,€Dec.€16,€2002,€&€133,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€("While€this€Tribunal€is€not€required€to€reach€the€same€result€as€the€British€Columbia€court,€it€finds€this€aspect€of€their€decision€instructive").€But€see€Pope€&€Talbot,€41€I.L.M.€at€1356,€n.37€(Tysoe's€construction€of€1105€ipse€dixit,€and€thus€of€questionable€precedential€value).ÌÌ[FN137].€The€tendency€on€the€part€of€Chapter€11€tribunals€to€present€alternative€bases€for€their€decisions,€if€not€prompted€by€Metalclad,€is€certainly€in€keeping€with€its€approach.€In€that€decision,€it€was€the€tribunal's€alternative€basis€for€finding€an€expropriation€that€survived€attack€in€Justice€Tysoe's€court.€See€Loewen€Group,€Inc.,€Final€Award,€June€26,€2003,€at€http://€www.naftalaw.org€(continuity€of€nationality€and€failure€to€exhaust);€Mondev€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/99/2,€Oct.€11,€2002,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(three€year€time€bar€and€pre„NAFTA€breach);€ADF€Group,€Inc.€v.€United€States,€Final€Award,€ICSID€Case€No.€ARB€(AF)/00/1,€Jan.€9,€2003,€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(no€violation€of€Articles€1102€and€procurement€exemption).ÌÌ[FN138].€To€the€author's€knowledge,€Vancouver€has€been€designated€as€an€arbitral€seat€once€since€the€Metalclad€decision€was€rendered.€While€certain€counsel€have€advised€against€Vancouver€as€a€place€for€Chapter€11€arbitration€on€the€basis€of€Justice€Tysoe's€decision,€others€find€the€opinion€unalarming.ÌÌ[FN139].€The€set€aside€ruling€in€the€S.D.€Myers€is€forthcoming€from€another€Canadian€court.ÌÌ[FN140].€"Legitimacy,"€a€now„popular€term,€is€used€variously€by€different€writers,€some€having€in€mind,€for€example,€the€stimulating€thought€of€Professor€Thomas€Franck,€in€Legitimacy€in€the€International€System,€82€Am.€J.€Int'l€L.€705,€706€(1988).€By€contrast,€I€use€it€in€a€non„technical€sense€to€connote€the€sum€total€of€attributes€that€inspire€confidence€in,€and€rightfully€perpetuate,€a€given€system€or€result.€In€using€the€term€I€do€not€necessarily,€therefore,€have€reference€to,€or€attempt€to€answer,€the€legitimacy€concerns€expressed€about€Chapter€11€by€others.€For€an€illustrative€list€of€commentators€expressing€concerns,€see€Charles€H.€Brower€II,€NAFTA's€Investment€Chapter:€Initial€Thoughts€About€Second„Generation€Rights,€37€Vand.€J.€Transnat'l€L.€(forthcoming€Nov.€2003).€See€also€Thomas€E.€Carbonneau,€The€Ballad€of€Transborder€Arbitration,€56€U.€Miami€L.€Rev.€773,€828„29€(2002)€(describing€and€replying€to€certain€critics).ÌÌ[FN141].€Swan,€supra€note€4,€at€166.ÌÌ[FN142].€Lydia€Lazar,€NAFTA€Dispute€Resolution:€Secret€Corporate€Weapon?,€1(3)€J.€Global€Fin.€Markets€49€(Winter€2000).ÌÌ[FN143].€Cf.€Thomas,€Reply€to€Professor€Brower,€supra€note€9,€at€460€€(Chapter€11€disputes€mechanism€is€an€extraordinary€elevation€of€private€standing€to€assert€international€legal€rights€owed€to€a€state).€But€see€generally€Charles€H.€Brower,€Beware€the€Jabberwock:€A€Reply€to€Mr.€Thomas,€40€Colum.€J.€Transnat'l€L.€465€(2002)€(arguing€Chapter€11€disputes€mechanism€is€meant€to€function€within€general€framework€for€international€commercial€arbitration)€[hereinafter€Brower,€Reply€to€Mr.€Thomas].ÌÌ[FN144].€Cf.€infra€notes€181„85€(the€Metalclad€example).ÌÌ[FN145].€See€Been€&€Beauvais,€supra€note€104,€at€41„43.€The€authors€conclude€that€the€competitive€advantage€potentially€given€foreign€investors€under€international€law€relative€to€local€enterprises€is€more€concretely€detrimental€than€the€potential€chill€on€regulation,€which€they€regard€as€more€speculative.€Id.€at€77.ÌÌ[FN146].€See€also€infra€notes€268„75€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN147].€Professor€Carbonneau€seems€to€agree€that€certain€characterizations€of€Chapter€11€have€been€misleading,€or€in€his€words,€"in€effect,€amounting€to€misrepresentation€...€pitched€at€the€level€of€deceit."€Carbonneau,€supra€note€140,€at€827€(with€reference€to€certain€incredulous€journalists'€failure€to€place€the€Chapter€11€process€in€context);€see€also€infra€note€156€and€accompanying€text.€See€generally€Barton€Legum,€The€Innovation€of€NAFTA€Investor„State€Arbitration,€43€Harv.€Int'l€L.€J.€531€(2002)€(tracing€mixed€claims€processes€historically€and€demonstrating€that€Chapter€11€is€not€wholly€novel).ÌÌ[FN148].€See€generally€Antonio€R.€Parra,€Provisions€on€the€Settlement€of€Investment€Disputes€in€Modern€Investment€Laws,€Bilateral€Investment€Treaties€and€Multilateral€Instruments€on€Investment,€12€ICSID€Rev.€287€(1997);€Naon,€supra€note€3,€at€85„88.ÌÌ[FN149].€See,€e.g.,€Senegal„U.S.€Treaty€Concerning€the€Reciprocal€Encouragement€and€Protection€of€Investment,€art.VII€(1986),€reprinted€in€Kenneth€Vandevelde,€United€States€Investment€Treaties€Policy€and€Practice€App.€B,€at€120€(1992)€(calling€for€ICSID€Arbitration€upon€failure€of€collaborative€means).ÌÌ[FN150].€See€generally€Rudolph€Dolzer€&€Margrete€Stevens,€Bilateral€Investment€Treaties€1„11€(1995).ÌÌ[FN151].€The€literature€regarding€the€Convention€is€considerable€and€of€a€high€quality.€For€a€seemingly€exhaustive€bibliography,€see€Christoph€H.€Schreuer,€The€ICSID€Convention:€A€Commentary€1291„1329€(2001).€For€an€instructive€and€insightful€account€of€ICSID€Convention€arbitration€that€outlines€the€process€concisely,€see€Abby€Cohen€Smutny,€Arbitration€Before€the€International€Centre€for€Settlement€of€Investment€Disputes,€3€Bus.€L.€Int'l€367€(2002).ÌÌ[FN152].€See€also€Guidelines€on€the€Treatment€of€Foreign€Direct€Investment,€7€ICSID€Rev.€297,€306€(1992)€(World€Bank€formulation€recommending€investor„state€arbitration).€See€generally€Ibrahim€Shihata,€Towards€a€Greater€Depoliticization€of€Investment€Disputes:€The€Roles€of€ICSID€and€MIGA,€1€ICSID€Rev.€1€(1986).ÌÌ[FN153].€See€generally€Brower€&€Brueschke,€supra€note€104,€at€16„20.ÌÌ[FN154].€See€also€Peter€T.€Muchlinski,€The€Rise€and€Fall€of€the€Multilateral€Agreement€on€Investment:€Where€Now?,€34€Int'l€Law.€1033,€1045„46€(2000)€(finding€investor„state€approach€to€disputes€not€new,€but€opposed€by€NGO's).€See€generally€Christopher€N.€Camponovo,€Comment,€Dispute€Settlement€and€the€OECD€Multilateral€Agreement€on€Investment,€1€UCLA€J.€Int'l€L.€&€Foreign€Aff.€181€(1996).€But€see€S.D.€Myers,€Inc.€v.€Canada,€Final€Award€on€the€Merits,€Nov.€13,€2000,€&&€84„86€(Separate€Opinion€of€Dr.€Bryan€Schwartz),€at€http://€www.naftalaw.org€(fear€of€chilling€liability€and€disruptive€claims€delayed€MAI).ÌÌ[FN155].€See,€e.g.,€Bilateral€Investment€Treaty€between€the€Swiss€Confederation€and€the€United€Mexican€States,€July€10,€1995,€Switz.„Mex.€(provisions€inspired€by€NAFTA).ÌÌ[FN156].€See€generally€Bill€Moyers€Reports:€Trading€Democracy€(PBS€television€broadcast),€available€at€http://€www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript_tdfull_print.html€(last€visited€Sept.€12,€2003)€(transcript€also€on€file€with€author).€But€see€Carbonneau,€supra€note€140,€at€827€("Nothing€is€ever€said„„and,€therefore,€understood„„about€the€larger€operation€and€aspirations€of€NAFTA.€The€critics€never€bothered€to€communicate€an€understanding€of€the€difficulty€of€international€adjudication€or€of€how€instrumental€a€functional€system€of€adjudication€is€to€the€pursuit€of€international€trade").ÌÌ[FN157].€See€generally€Preliminary€Report€of€the€International€Law€Commission€on€Diplomatic€Protection,€UN€Doc.€A/CN.4/484€(1998)€[hereinafter€Preliminary€Report];€Werner€Goldschmidt,€Transactions€Between€States€and€Public€Firms€and€Private€Foreign€Firms€(A€Methodological€Study),€in€136€Recueil€des€Cours€203,€239„42€(1972€II);€Ian€Brownlie,€Principles€of€Public€International€Law€406„07€(5th€ed.€1998);€Peter€Malunczuk,€Akehurst's€Modern€Introduction€to€International€Law€256„57€(7th€ed.€1997);€James€Crawford,€The€International€Law€Commissions'€Articles€on€State€Responsibility€223„24€(2002).ÌÌ[FN158].€See,€e.g.,€Banco€National€de€Cuba€v.€Sabbatino,€376€U.S.€398€€(1964)€(act€of€state€doctrine€precluded€judicial€consideration€of€foreign€government's€alleged€taking€of€property);€see€also€Pearce€&€Coe,€supra€note€3,€at€317„19€nn.27„28€(discussing€act€of€state€doctrine€and€sovereign€immunity€questions€and€providing€related€authority)€.ÌÌ[FN159].€See€Preliminary€Report,€supra€note€157,€at€2„4.ÌÌ[FN160].€John€Collier€&€Vaughan€Lowe,€The€Settlement€of€Disputes€in€International€Law€132„68€(1999).€See€generally€Brownlie,€supra€note€157,€at€728„30;€J.G.€Merrills,€International€Dispute€Settlement€121„129,€168„169€(3d€ed.€1998).ÌÌ[FN161].€.Weston,€Lillich€&€Bederman,€supra€note€104,€at€84„88€(lump€sum€agreements€often,€but€not€invariably,€lead€to€partial€compensation).ÌÌ[FN162].€Shihata,€supra€note€152,€at€15„16.€Judge€Padilla's€separate€opinion€in€the€Barcelona€Traction€case€is€characteristic€of€these€misgivings:Ì€€The€history€of€the€responsibility€of€States€in€respect€to€the€treatment€of€foreign€nationals€is€the€history€of€abuses,€illegal€interference€in€the€domestic€jurisdiction€of€weaker€States,€unjust€claims,€threats€and€even€military€aggression€under€the€flag€of€exercising€rights€of€protection,€and€the€imposing€of€sanctions€in€order€to€oblige€a€Government€to€make€the€reparation€demanded.ÌBarcelona€Traction,€Light€&€Power€Co.€(Belg.€v.€Spain),€1970€I.C.J.€3,€246€€(Feb.€5).ÌÌ[FN163].€Diplomatic€protection€may€be€exercised,€however,€if€the€arbitrating€state€fails€to€abide€by€any€award€ultimately€rendered€against€it.€ICSID€Convention,€supra€note€10,€art.€27(1).€The€prospect€of€diplomatic€protection€supplies€an€inducement€to€states€to€comply€promptly€with€ICSID€awards,€but€would€appear€not€to€preclude€parallel€resort€to€private€mechanisms€for€enforcing€the€award.ÌÌ[FN164].€Barcelona€Traction€Power€&€Light€Co.€(Belg.€v.€Spain),€1964€I.C.J.€6€(Preliminary€Objections);€Barcelona€Traction€Power€&€Light€Co.€(Belg.€v.€Spain),€1970€I.C.J.€3€(2d€Phase).ÌÌ[FN165].€ELSI,€Judgment,€supra€note€103.€ELSI€is€distinguishable€in€that€it€was€before€a€Chamber€of€the€ICJ,€and€may€be€presumed€to€have€been€more€efficient€than€would€a€full€Court€proceeding.€Nevertheless,€it€remained€an€espoused€claim,€and€as€Keith€Highet€wrote,€"In€the€Hydra„headed€example€of€a€derivative€claim€in€an€espousal€case€...€matters€are€not€so€simple.€There€were€at€least€two€clients'€here€[Raytheon€and€the€United€States€in€dual€capacities]."€Keith€Highet,€Evidence,€the€Chamber€and€the€ELSI€Case,€in€Fact„Finding€Before€International€Tribunals€33,€43€(Richard€B.€Lillich€ed.,€1990)€(referring€to€the€problems€of€national„home€state€cooperation€in€attempting€to€produce€convincing€evidence€and€argument).ÌÌ[FN166].€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€102(1)(e).ÌÌ[FN167].€See€Mohamed€I.€Khalil,€Treatment€of€Foreign€Investment€in€Bilateral€Investment€Treaties,€7€ICSID€Rev.€339,€382€(1992)€(vast€majority€of€335€BITs€and€similar€treaties€surveyed€contained€ICSID€arbitration€provisions);€cf.€Caron,€supra€note€26,€at€155€(investment€flows€stimulated€by€availability€of€arbitration);€Ibrahim€F.€I.€Shihata,€Promotion€of€Foreign€Direct€Investment„„A€General€Account€with€Particular€Reference€to€the€Role€of€the€World€Bank,€6€ICSID€Rev.€484,€505€(World€Bank€sponsored€ICSID€to€foster€environment€conducive€to€investment).€But€see€Been€&€Beauvais,€supra€note€104,€at€123€n.432€(no€evidence€that€treaty€protections€encourage€investment).ÌÌ[FN168].€Both€the€ICSID€and€New€York€Conventions€have€over€100€parties.€See€ITA€Bibliography,€supra€note€3,€at€10€(table€of€treaty€adherence).ÌÌ[FN169].€See€generally€Brownlie,€supra€note€157,€at€496„506;€M.€Sornarajah,€The€Settlement€of€Foreign€Investment€Disputes€328„29€(2000);€C.F.€Amerasinghe,€Whither€the€Local€Remedies€Rule?,€5€ICSID€Rev.€292€(1990);€Nsongurua€J.€Udombana,€So€Far,€So€Fair:€The€Local€Remedies€Rule€in€the€Jurisprudence€of€the€African€Commission€on€Human€and€People's€Rights,€97€Am.€J.€Int'l€L.€1,€3„6€(2003).ÌÌ[FN170].€ELSI,€Judgment,€supra€note€103,€at€42.ÌÌ[FN171].€William€S.€Dodge,€Loewen€v.€United€States:€Trials€and€Errors€Under€NAFTA€Chapter€Eleven,€52€DePaul€L.€Rev.€563,€572€(2002).€Professor€Dodge€holds€that€certain€architectural€changes€would€be€necessary€to€establish€the€requirement.€Id.€at€573.ÌÌ[FN172].€See€Arthur€T.€von€Merhen,€Arbitration€Between€States€and€Foreign€Enterprises:€The€Significance€of€the€Institute€of€International€Law's€Santiago€de€Compostela€Resolution,€5€ICSID€Rev.€54,€61„62€(1990)€(discussing€Resolution,€Article€8:€"[A]€requirement€of€exhaustion€of€local€remedies€as€a€condition€is€not€admissible€unless€the€arbitration€agreement€provides€otherwise").€The€resolution€is€reprinted€id.€at€139.ÌÌ[FN173].€See€supra€note€87,€infra€notes€188„202,€251€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN174].€Under€a€prevailing€view,€at€least€once€the€issue€is€properly€raised,€the€burden€is€on€the€claimant€to€demonstrate€that€available€remedies€have€been€exhausted.€See€Loewen,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31,€&€215.ÌÌ[FN175].€See€id.€&&€207„11€(discussing€whether€failure€to€seek€Supreme€Court€review€would€be€excused).ÌÌ[FN176].€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1121(1);€supra€note€54€(discussing€Waste€Mgmt.€I).€The€argument€for€implied€exemption€from€the€exhaustion€requirement€is€that€the€NAFTA€parties,€while€affirmatively€requiring€the€investor€to€repudiate€local€remedies€if€wishing€to€arbitrate,€were€silent€on€the€seemingly€related€question€of€exhaustion.€Though€the€waiver€requirement€may€simply€be€aimed€at€preventing€inconsistent€decisions€arising€out€of€the€same€measure,€the€implication€is€that€an€investor€may€shun€domestic€redress€provided€it€is€prepared€to€not€prosecute€parallel€actions„„one€in€arbitration,€one€in€local€courts.€If€an€investor€were€required€to€exhaust€local€remedies€concerning€the€measure€complained€of,€there€would€be€little€left€to€waive,€rendering€Article€1121€superfluous.ÌÌ[FN177].€NAFTA€Annex€1120.1€records€Mexico's€stipulation€that€an€investor€€"may€not€allege€that€Mexico€has€breached€an€obligation€under€[Chapter€11]€both€in€an€arbitration€under€[Chapter€11]€and€before€a€Mexican€court€or€administrative€tribunal."€The€apparent€effect€is€to€prevent€an€unsuccessful€NAFTA„based€court€claim€before€a€Mexican€court€from€being€followed€by€a€second€attempt€through€Chapter€11€arbitration€(or€vice€versa).€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€Annex€1120.1.ÌÌ[FN178].€See€Metalclad,€Award,€supra€note€41,€ðð€97€n.4€Feldman,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31,€&&€71„73.ÌÌ[FN179].€See€Pearce€&€Coe,€supra€note€3,€at€323„24;€William€S.€Dodge,€€National€Courts€and€International€Arbitration:€Exhaustion€of€Remedies€and€Res€Judicata€Under€Chapter€Eleven€of€NAFTA,€23€Hastings€Int'l€&€Comp.€L€Rev.€357,€373„76€(2000);€Dodge,€supra€note€171,€at€572„77.ÌÌ[FN180].€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€&€126.ÌÌ[FN181].€See€Dodge,€supra€note€57;€Weiler,€supra€note€57.ÌÌ[FN182].€Metalclad,€Counter€Memorial,€at€183;€Metalclad,€Reply€Brief,€at€75€€(briefs€on€file€with€author).ÌÌ[FN183].€See€generally€Pearce€&€Coe,€supra€note€3,€at€323„24€(Metalclad's€counsel€discussing€exhaustion).ÌÌ[FN184].€In€a€rare€footnote,€the€tribunal€observed€that€Mexico€had€not€insisted€that€exhaustion€was€required,€and€that€its€forbearance€was€concordant€with€the€tribunal's€reading€of€Article€1121(2)(b).€Metalclad,€Award,€supra€note€41,€&€97€n.4.ÌÌ[FN185].€At€the€hearing,€Metalclad's€counsel€made€reference€to€the€Municipality's€handling€of€its€permit€request€as,€among€other€things,€an€administrative€denial€of€justice€and€in€its€post„hearing€brief€commended€to€the€tribunal€consideration€of€Amco€v.€Indonesia,€Resubmitted€Case,€Award€on€the€Merits€(May€31,€1990),€1€ICSID€Rep.€569€(1993).€Post„Hearing€Brief€at€17€n.43,€submitted€Nov.€9,€1999€(Brief€on€file€with€author).€Had€the€claimant€more€squarely€relied€on€the€theory€as€an€autonomous€basis€of€recovery,€its€failure€to€exhaust€local€appeals€may€have€raised€questions€similar€to€those€confronted€in€Loewen.€See€infra€notes€189„202€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN186].€Feldman,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31.ÌÌ[FN187].€Id.€&€114.ÌÌ[FN188].€Loewen,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31.€For€pre„award€factual€summary€and€analysis€see€generally€Dodge,€Trials,€supra€note€171,€at€563„67€and€Robert€E.€Lutz€&€Russell€C.€Trice,€NAFTA€at€Five€and€the€Loewen€Case,€Translex€1€(Oct.€1999).ÌÌ[FN189].€Loewen,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31,€&&€30„38.ÌÌ[FN190].€Id.€&&€119„23.ÌÌ[FN191].€Id.€&€122.ÌÌ[FN192].€Id.€&€6.ÌÌ[FN193].€Id.€&€7.ÌÌ[FN194].€See€generally€Jack€J.€Coe,€Jr.,€Denial€of€Justice€and€NAFTA€Chapter€Eleven„„The€Mondev€Award,€Int'l€Arb.€News€2€(Winter€2002/2003)€(ABA€SILP€publication).ÌÌ[FN195].€Through€a€corporate€reorganization,€the€Canadian€corporation€had€lost€the€requisite€nationality€to€fall€within€the€tribunal's€jurisdiction;€the€individual€claim€of€Ray€Loewen€failed€because€he€had€not€demonstrated€to€the€tribunal's€satisfaction€ownership€or€control.€For€a€more€complete€summary,€see€supra€note€53€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN196].€In€summation€the€tribunal€observed:€"the€whole€trial€and€its€resultant€verdict€were€clearly€improper€and€discreditable€and€cannot€be€squared€with€minimum€standards€of€international€law€and€fair€and€equitable€treatment."€Loewen,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31,€&137.ÌÌ[FN197].€Id.€&€215.€That€grants€of€certiorari€are€discretionary€and€infrequent€would€not€alone€excuse€the€failure€to€seek€such€review.€Id.€&&€215„17.ÌÌ[FN198].€Id.€&€162.ÌÌ[FN199].€See€id.€&€161€(relying€on€agreement€between€Professors€Christopher€Greenwood€and€Sir€Robert€Jennings).ÌÌ[FN200].€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1121.ÌÌ[FN201].€Loewen,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31,€&€163.ÌÌ[FN202].€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1101.€The€definition€of€"measure"€however€is€very€broad,€so€that€this€line€of€reasoning€encounters€difficulty.€Why€would€a€lower€court's€handling€of€a€case€not€fall€within€"any€law,€regulation,€procedure,€requirement€or€practice"€?€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€201(1).ÌÌ[FN203].€See€generally€Dodge,€Exhaustion,€supra€note€179;€Dodge,€Trials,€supra€note€171.ÌÌ[FN204].€See€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€&&€115„16,€126„27.ÌÌ[FN205].€Azinian,€Award,€supra€note€82,€&&€17,€75.ÌÌ[FN206].€Principally,€the€defects€related€to€misrepresentations€made€by€the€investor€in€seeking€the€concession.€Id.€&€21.ÌÌ[FN207].€Id.ÌÌ[FN208].€Id.€&€100.ÌÌ[FN209].€See€Feldman,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31,€&€114€(stating€that€the€failure€to€seek€clarification€of€eligibility€for€rebates€damaging€to€investor's€case).ÌÌ[FN210].€Cf.€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€&€87€(dismissing€claims€as€time„barred€under€Article€1116).ÌÌ[FN211].€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€Annex€1120.1.ÌÌ[FN212].€See€Brower,€supra€note€131,€at€66„68€(discussing€the€perceived€amenability€of€certain€treaty€standards€to€arbitral€law„making€and€consequent€potential€for€doctrinal€incoherence).ÌÌ[FN213].€See€generally€Brownlie,€supra€note€157,€at€4„11.ÌÌ[FN214].€See€supra€note€33€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN215].€See€supra€notes€129„31€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN216].€See€id.ÌÌ[FN217].€For€more€on€the€distinction€between€amendment€and€interpretation,€see€Brower,€supra€note€135,€at€50,€65.€For€discussion€by€a€Chapter€11€tribunal,€see€Pope€&€Talbot,€Award€on€Damages,€supra€note€79,€&&€105„18.ÌÌ[FN218].€In€Pope€&€Talbot€the€validity€question€was€linked€to€whether€a€finding€of€liability€should€be€reassessed€in€light€of€a€subsequent€Note€arguably€presenting€a€different€interpretation€than€that€supporting€the€award.€See€Pope€&€Talbot,€Award€on€Damages,€supra€note€79,€&&€105„18,€infra€note€231€and€accompanying€text.€See€generally€J.€Christopher€Thomas,€Reflections€on€Article€1105€of€NAFTA:€History,€State€Practice€and€the€Influence€of€Commentators,€17€ICSID€Rev.€21,€98„101€(2002).ÌÌ[FN219].€See€generally€Brower,€supra€note€131,€at€66„68;€Thomas,€supra€note€218.ÌÌ[FN220].€See€Brower€et€al.,€supra€note€55,€at€17„19.ÌÌ[FN221].€Article€38€of€the€ICJ€Statute€lists€not€only€custom€but€treaties€and€general€principles€of€law€recognized€by€developed€legal€systems,€sources€discussed€in€detail€in€the€standard€references.€See€Brownlie,€supra€note€157,€ch.€1.ÌÌ[FN222].€At€the€time€of€Metalclad,€few€commentaries€shed€light€on€Article€1105€or€its€predecessor€formulae.€Among€them€was€F.A.€Mann,€whose€essay€in€British€Yearbook€of€International€Law€was€embraced€by€claimants€with€considerable€enthusiasm.€In€discussing€the€fair€and€equitable€clause€in€certain€British€BITs,€Mann€wrote:Ì€€[W]hile€it€may€be€suggested€that€arbitrary,€discriminatory€or€abusive€treatment€is€contrary€to€customary€international€law,€unfair€and€inequitable€treatment€is€a€much€wider€conception€which€may€readily€include€such€administrative€measures€...as€are€not€plainly€illegal€in€the€accepted€sense€of€international€law.ÌF.A.€Mann,€British€Treaties€for€the€Promotion€and€Protection€of€Investments,€€1981€Brit.€Y.B.€Int'l€L.€241,€243,€reprinted€in€F.A.€Mann,€Further€Studies€in€International€Law€234,€237€(1990).ÌFor€Mann€it€was€clear€that€fair€and€equitable€treatment€was€not€merely€a€restatement€of€the€minimum€standard,€or€simply€one€component€of€it,€but€extended€"far€beyond€the€minimum€standard."€Id.€at€237„38.€The€provision€Mann€was€construing€however„„like€the€majority€of€BITs„„made€no€mention€of€international€law€in€connection€with€fair€and€equitable€treatment.€See€Brower€et€al.,€supra€note€55,€at€17.€Whereas€Article€1105€refers€to€"treatment€in€accordance€with€international€law€including€fair€and€equitable€treatment"€(emphasis€added).€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1105(1).€The€most€natural€literal€import€of€that€language€is€that€international€law€includes€a€fairness€component,€not€that€fairness€is€an€augmenting€treaty€obligation€added€to€the€dictates€of€the€international€minimum€standard.€Yet,€for€disputants,€a€failure€of€authorities€to€provide€distinct€customary€parameters€to€the€concept€"fair€and€equitable€treatment"€left€a€vacuum,€filled€by€ordinary€meaning.€For€thoughtful€discussion€of€this€and€related€problems€by€one€of€Mexico's€counsel,€see€generally€Thomas,€Reflections,€supra€note€216.ÌÌ[FN223].€See€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€&&€120„23,€127.ÌÌ[FN224].€See€generally€Brower€et€al.,€supra€note€55.ÌÌ[FN225].€S.D.€Myers,€Award€on€Merits,€supra€note€31,€&&€258„66.ÌÌ[FN226].€Id.€&€264.ÌÌ[FN227].€Id.€&€266.€The€tribunal€cited€F.€A.€Mann€for€the€observation€that€the€fair€and€equitable€treatment€as€an€overriding€duty€may€be€sufficiently€broad€to€encompass€many€of€the€specific€protections€contained€in€BITs.€Id.€&€265.ÌÌ[FN228].€In€pertinent€part,€the€Note€states€under€the€heading€"Minimum€Standard€of€Treatment€in€Accordance€with€International€Law":Ì€€1.Article€1105(1)€prescribes€the€customary€international€law€minimum€standard€of€treatment€of€aliens€as€the€minimum€standard€of€treatment€to€be€afforded€to€investments€of€investors€of€another€Party.Ì2.The€concepts€of€"fair€and€equitable€treatment"€and€"full€protection€and€security"€do€not€require€treatment€in€addition€to€or€beyond€that€which€is€required€by€the€customary€international€law€minimum€standard€of€treatment€of€aliens.Ì3.A€determination€that€there€has€been€a€breach€of€another€provision€of€the€NAFTA,€or€of€a€separate€international€agreement,€does€not€establish€that€there€has€been€a€breach€of€Article€1105(1).ÌNotes€of€Interpretation€of€Certain€Chapter€11€provisions,€July€31,€2001,€ðð€B,€available€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(last€visited€Sept.€12,€2003).ÌÌ[FN229].€See€generally€Brower,€supra€note€135;€Thomas,€Reply€to€Professor€Brower,€supra€note€43;€Brower,€Reply€to€Mr.€Thomas,€supra€note€143.ÌÌ[FN230].€See€ADF,€Award,€supra€note€40,€&&€109„25€(recounting€of€copious€filings€before€it€on€the€subject).ÌÌ[FN231].€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€ðð€125€ADF,€Award,€supra€note€40,€&186.ÌÌ[FN232].€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€&&€120„25.€With€respect€to€the€FTC€Note,€the€Mondev€tribunal€found€nothing€implausible€in€excluding€from€Article€1105€extraneous€treaty€obligations€among€the€Parties€and€in€rejecting€that€fair€and€equitable€treatments€are€something€more€than€elements€among€a€cluster€of€protections€constituting€the€international€minimum€standard€(the€text€referring€after€all€to€them€as€"included").€Yet,€it€also€declined€to€tether€Article€1105€to€19th€Century€custom,€reasoning€rather€that€the€custom€referred€to€must€be€of€a€modern€and€evolving€sort.ÌÌ[FN233].€The€difference€in€approach€to€the€FTC€Note€between€Pope€&€Talbot€and€the€subsequent€Mondev€and€ADF€tribunals€is€marked.€The€former's€Award€on€Damages,€Pope€&€Talbot,€Award€on€Damages,€supra€note€79,€intimated€in€dictum€that€it€regarded€the€Note€as€probably€an€amendment,€not€a€mere€interpretation,€so€that€if€it€was€required€to,€it€would€proceed€without€giving€the€Note€binding€effect.€Id.€&€47.€In€response,€all€three€NAFTA€governments€seized€their€first€opportunity€to€attack€that€view.€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€&€110.€Ultimately,€the€Pope€&€Talbot€tribunal€confirmed€the€pre„Note€result€it€had€reached€in€its€earlier€award€after€proceeding,€arguendo,€as€if€the€Note€governed€and€attributing€to€it€the€strictest€approach€offered€it„„that€of€the€Respondent.€Pope€&€Talbot,€Award€on€Damages,€supra€note€79,€&€68.ÌÌ[FN234].€Cf.€George€Aldrich,€What€Constitutes€Compensable€Taking€of€Property?€The€Decisions€of€the€Iran„United€States€Claims€Tribunal,€88€Am.€J.€Int'l€L.€585€(1994)€(distilling€Tribunal€decisional€law€on€expropriation€and€citing€from€Vol.€27€of€the€Tribunal€Reporter).ÌÌ[FN235].€See€generally€Rosalyn€Higgins,€The€Taking€of€Property€by€the€State:€Recent€Developments€in€International€Law,€176€Recueil€des€Cours€259€(1982).€Some€writers€and€arbitrators€distinguish€terminologically€between€property€"interference"€and€property€"deprivation,"€only€the€latter€being€compensable.€See€Brower,€supra€note€120,€at€68„71.€The€distinction€is€not€uniformly€observed.ÌÌ[FN236].€See€Dodge,€supra€note€171,€at€576.ÌÌ[FN237].€See,€e.g.,€Feldman,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31,€&€112€(paraphrasing€Azinian,€supra€note€82,€ðð€83)€("not€all€government€regulatory€activity€[thwarting€a€particular€business€plan]€is€an€expropriation");€Myers,€Award,€supra€note€31,€&€281€(regulatory€action€not€usually€a€taking).ÌÌ[FN238].€Metalclad,€Award,€supra€note€41,€&€103.ÌÌ[FN239].€See€Andreas€F.€Lowenfeld,€International€Economic€Law€476„80€(John€H.€Jackson€ed.,€2002)€(comparing€several€Chapter€11€expropriation€cases€including€Metalclad).ÌÌ[FN240].€See€Dodge,€supra€note€57,€at€918€(raising€need€for€appellate€body€for€Chapter€11€awards).ÌÌ[FN241].€Higgins,€supra€note€235.ÌÌ[FN242].€Id.€at€324.ÌÌ[FN243].€See€generally€Feldman,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31;€Pope€&€Talbot,€Award€in€Respect€of€Damages,€supra€note€79.ÌÌ[FN244].€Feldman,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31,€&€152.ÌÌ[FN245].€Id.€&€148€(Metalclad€deprived€of€all€beneficial€use,€unlike€instant€claimant).ÌÌ[FN246].€See€also€Pope€&€Talbot€v.€Canada,€Interim€Award€(June€26,€2000),€&€102,€available€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(last€visited€Sept.€12,€2003)€(test€is€degree€of€interference€with€investment's€operation).ÌÌ[FN247].€See€id.€ðð€99€Feldman,€Final€Award,€supra€note€31,€ðððð€102,€110€S.D.€Myers,€Award€on€Merits,€supra€note€31,€Schwartz€Sep.€Op.,€&€206,€217.ÌÌ[FN248].€See€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€&70.ÌÌ[FN249].€See€id.€&€43.ÌÌ[FN250].€See€Ethyl€Corp.,€Award€on€Jurisdiction,€supra€note€4,€&€91.ÌÌ[FN251].€See€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€ðððð€123„25€ADF,€Award,€supra€note€40,€&&€185„86.ÌÌ[FN252].€Certain€claimants€had€unsuccessfully€argued€that€the€Article€1110€phrase€"or€a€measure€tantamount€to€...€expropriation"€extends€beyond€customary€limits€the€scope€of€compensable€property€interference.€See€S.D.€Myers,€Award€on€Merits,€supra€note€31,€ðð€285€Pope€&€Talbot,€Interim€Award,€supra€note€243,€&&€84„96.ÌÌ[FN253].€See€infra€tbl.€4.ÌÌ[FN254].€See€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€&€127.ÌÌ[FN255].€See€id.€&€123.ÌÌ[FN256].€See€infra€tbl.€4.ÌÌ[FN257].€Interest€formulae€designated€by€Chapter€Eleven€tribunals€have€been€diverse.€The€not„unprecedented€practice€of€awarding€compounding€interest€was€followed€in€Pope€&€Talbot,€where€the€tribunal€in€both€its€damages€and€costs€awards€affixed€"5%€per€annum€compounded€quarterly€and€pro€rata€within€a€quarter."€Pope€&€Talbot,€Award€on€Damages,€supra€note€79,€ðð€90€Pope€&€Talbot,€Award€on€Costs,€supra€note€81,€&€18.€By€contrast,€the€Feldman€award€of€nearly€seventeen€million€pesos€carried€simple€interest€"to€be€calculated€...€for€each€month€of€the€period€of€calculation€at€a€rate€equivalent€to€the€yield€for€the€month,€of€the€Federal€Treasury€Certificates,€issued€by€the€Mexican€Government,€with€a€maturity€of€28€days."€Feldman,€Award,€supra€note€32,€&€211.€See€William€W.€Park,€Andrea€K.€Bjorklund,€&€Jack€J.€Coe,€Jr.,€Year€in€Review:€International€Arbitration,€37€Int'l€Law€445,€456€(2003).ÌÌ[FN258].€The€advent€of€Loewen,€see€supra€notes€188„199€and€accompanying€text,€would€appear€to€move€the€exhaustion€question€to€the€head€of€the€list,€given€that€the€Mondev€tribunal,€equally€in€reference€to€a€denial€of€justice€claim,€regarded€exhaustion€as€an€"option""€(not€a€requirement).€Mondev,€Final€Award,€supra€note€49,€&€126.ÌÌ[FN259].€See,€e.g.,€Anthony€De€Palma,€NAFTA's€Powerful€Little€Secret:€Obscure€Tribunals€Settle€Disputes,€But€Go€Too€Far€Critics€Say,€N.Y.€Times,€Mar.€11,€2001,€ðð€3,€at€1€(describing€investor„state€arbitral€process€as€a€form€of€"secret€government"from€the€point€of€view€of€one€public€interest€activist);€cf.€Carbonneau,€supra€note€140,€at€826„29€(regarding€ill„informed€and€misleading€critiques€of€Chapter€11).€A€different€form€of€transparency€deficiency€that€some€observers€emphasize€is€the€lack€of€an€open€democratic€process€leading€to€trade€obligations;€for€these€critics,€the€process€ought€to€afford€interested€groups€an€opportunity€to€comment€and€to€galvanize€opposition€to€perceived€imbalances.€See€Been€&€Beauvais,€supra€note€145,€n.482€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN260].€See€W.€Laurence€Craig,€William€W.€Park€&€Jan€Paulsson,€International€Chamber€of€Commerce€Arbitration€311„12€(3d€ed.€2000).ÌÌ[FN261].€See€Coe,€supra€note€28,€at€86„87,€262„63.ÌÌ[FN262].€See€Thomas,€Reply€to€Professor€Brower,€supra€note€43,€at€457€n.95.ÌÌ[FN263].€The€Metalclad€tribunal€ruled€that€under€the€circumstances€before€it,€the€disputants€were€not€under€a€duty€to€refrain€from€disclosing€details€of€their€arbitration.€The€question€was€raised€by€Mexico,€which€sought€an€order€preventing€claimant€from€discussing€the€case€with€non„participants,€such€as€shareholders€and€the€press.€Long€before€the€case€was€filed,€telephone€conferences€with€shareholders€had€become€a€common€practice€for€Metalclad€and€the€practice€continued.€Mexico€maintained€that€matters€under€consideration€before€the€tribunal€were€confidential.€Metalclad€rejected€any€obligation€of€confidentiality,€relying€on€the€absence€of€any€formal€agreement€on€the€subject,€Mexico's€own€conduct€in€apparent€contravention€of€the€supposed€rule€and€its€obligations€of€disclosure€as€a€public€company.€The€tribunal€declined€to€issue€the€order€that€Mexico€sought,€but€expressed€the€view€that€limiting€public€discussion€of€the€case€to€a€minimum€would€facilitate€the€orderly€unfolding€of€the€proceedings€and€enhance€working€relations€between€the€parties.ÌÌ[FN264].€In€pertinent€part,€the€Note€states:Ì€€Nothing€in€the€NAFTA€imposes€a€general€duty€of€confidentiality€on€the€disputing€parties€to€a€Chapter€Eleven€arbitration,€and,€subject€to€the€application€of€Article€1137(4),€nothing€in€the€NAFTA€precludes€the€Parties€from€providing€public€access€to€documents€submitted€to,€or€issued€by,€a€Chapter€Eleven€tribunal....€Each€Party€agrees€to€make€available€to€the€public€in€a€timely€manner€all€documents€submitted€to,€or€issued€by,€a€Chapter€Eleven€tribunal,€subject€to€redaction€of:€confidential€business€information;€information€which€is€privileged€or€otherwise€protected€from€disclosure€under€the€Party's€domestic€law;€and€information€which€the€Party€must€withhold€pursuant€to€the€relevant€arbitral€rules,€as€applied.ÌThe€Parties€reaffirm€that€disputing€parties€may€disclose€to€other€persons€in€connection€with€the€arbitral€proceedings€such€unredacted€documents€as€they€consider€necessary€for€the€preparation€of€their€cases,€but€they€shall€ensure€that€those€persons€protect€the€confidential€information€in€such€documents.€The€Parties€further€reaffirm€that€the€Governments€of€Canada,€the€United€Mexican€States€and€the€United€States€of€America€may€share€with€officials€of€their€respective€federal,€state€or€provincial€governments€all€relevant€documents€in€the€course€of€dispute€settlement€under€Chapter€Eleven€of€NAFTA,€including€confidential€information.€The€Parties€confirm€that€nothing€in€this€interpretation€shall€be€construed€to€require€any€Party€to€furnish€or€allow€access€to€information€that€it€may€withhold€in€accordance€with€Articles€2102€or€2105.ÌNotes€of€interpretation€of€Certain€Chapter€11€Provisions,€July€31,€2001,€ðð€A,€available€at€http://www.naftaclaims.com/Papers/July%2031%202001%20NAFTA%20FTC%€20Statement.pdf€(last€visited€Sept.€11,€2003)€(paragraphing€deleted).ÌÌ[FN265].€See€Methanex€v.€United€States,€Decision€of€the€Tribunal€on€Petitions€for€Third€Persons€to€Intervene€as€"Amici€Curiae",€supra€note€37.€The€UPS€v.€Canada€tribunal,€in€principle,€also€authorized€limited,€written€submissions,€subject€to€strictures€to€be€established€in€consultation€with€the€disputants.€See€United€Parcel€Service€of€Am.,€Inc.€v.€Canada,€Decision€of€the€Tribunal€on€Petitions€for€Intervention€and€Participation€as€Amicus€Curiae,€supra€note€37.ÌÌ[FN266].€See€ICSID€Press€Release,€available€at€http://www.worldbank/.org€€(last€visited€Sept.€11,€2003).ÌÌ[FN267].€See€Brower,€supra€note€131,€at€70€and€accompanying€footnotes.ÌÌ[FN268].€For€some€this€may€beg€an€essential€question,€since€unlike€some€writers,€I€do€not€find€investor„state€arbitration€sufficiently€different€from€its€private€counterpart€for€wholly€different€considerations€to€obtain.€Many€of€the€same€attributes€and€factors€that€make€arbitration€attractive€in€private€trade€also€commend€its€use€in€the€mixed€setting.ÌÌ[FN269].€See€infra€part€5.H€and€accompanying€notes.ÌÌ[FN270].€See€infra€notes€293„309€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN271].€See€Evelyn€Iritani,€Ban€on€MTBE€Induces€Suit€Using€NAFTA€Provision,€L.A.€Times,€Feb.6,€2002,€at€C1.ÌÌ[FN272].€Cf.€S.D.€Myers,€Award€on€Merits,€supra€note€31,€Schwartz€Sep.€Op.€&€203€(critics€warn€"[f]ear€of€liability€may€cause€governments€to€shy€away€from€bold€regulatory€action€in€the€interests€of€health€..€").€See€generally€William€T.€Warren,€Paying€to€Regulate:€A€Guide€to€Methanex€v.€United€States€and€NAFTA€Investor€Rights,€31€Envtl.€L.€Rep.€10986€(2001).ÌÌ[FN273].€See,€e.g.,€S.D.€Myers,€Award€On€Merits,€supra€note€31,€Schwartz€Sep.€Op.,€&&85„86€(separate€opinion€discussing€contention€that€certain€Chapter€11€claims€challenge€"the€practical€ability€of€governmental€authorities€to€protect€health€and€the€environment")€and€contrast€Metalclad€v.€Mexico,€Case€No.€ARB(AF)/97/1,€Claimant's€Reply,€ðð€531€(rules€of€compensation€should€not€make€"a€non„sense€of€foreign€investment")€(Reply€Brief€on€file€with€author).ÌÌ[FN274].€See€supra€for€discussion€of€Azinian,€Mondev,€ADF€and€Lowen,€for€example.ÌÌ[FN275].€See€Metalclad,€Reasons€for€Judgment€of€Hon.€Mr.€Justice€Tysoe,€supra€note€43.ÌÌ[FN276].€For€a€description€of€S.D.€Myers,€see€infra€note€282€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN277].€Myers€had€sought€$20€million,€a€request€moderated€no€doubt€by€its€knowledge€that€expropriation€had€been€ruled€out€by€the€tribunal's€earlier€award.€It€did€receive€costs,€but€those€awarded€were€substantially€less€than€$1€million.ÌÌ[FN278].€See€supra€note€82€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN279].€See€supra€note€52€and€accompanying€text.€When€reformulating€its€case,€Methanex€must€show€a€closer€link€between€the€ban€complained€of€and€its€investment;€merely€demonstrating€a€causal€connection€between€the€ban€and€the€injury€to€the€investment€will€not€suffice€to€demonstrate€that€the€measure€"related€to"€the€investment.€See€Methanex,€Preliminary€Award,€supra€note€52,€&&€138„39,€147,€159€(discussing€the€need€for€a€"legally€significant€connection"€between€the€measure€and€the€investment),€available€at€http://www.naftalaw.org€(last€visited€Sept.€11,€2003).ÌÌ[FN280].€See€infra€tbl.€4.€Note€also€that€Feldman€is€under€review€by€a€Canadian€court.€See€http://www.naftalaw.org.ÌÌ[FN281].€See€Been€&€Beauvais,€supra€note€145,€at€nn.489„90€and€accompanying€text€("clearest€cost"€is€competitive€advantage€for€foreign€firms).ÌÌ[FN282].€In€broaching€their€misgivings,€Been€&€Beauvais€summarize€as€follows:Ì€€[I]f€our€concerns€about€what€the€early€tribunals'€interpretations€of€the€NAFTA€expropriation€provision€foreshadow€are€realized,€and€NAFTA€thereby€becomes€more€expansive€than€U.S.€takings€law,€there€will€be€significant€costs:€Article€1110€will€provide€foreign€investors€with€competitive€advantages€over€domestic€investors,€may€deter€efficient€regulation,€and€may€alter€the€balance€of€power€between€federal,€state,€and€local€governments.€Alternatively,€the€NAFTA€decisions€may€have€a€"ratchet"€effect,€forcing€U.S.€regulatory€takings€law€to€expand€as€well.ÌId.€nn.28„31€(footnotes€omitted).ÌÌ[FN283].€The€author€has€encountered€practitioners€espousing€this€strategy€as€a€method€for€enhancing€bargaining€power€in€dealing€with€regulatory€proceedings€in€which€discretion€plays€a€role.ÌÌ[FN284].€U.S.€lawmakers€have€attempted€to€attach€such€a€limitation€on€future€trade€compacts.€See€Bipartisan€Trade€Promotion€Act€of€2002,€19€U.S.C.€ðð€3801;€Pub.€L.€No.€107„210,€116€Stat.€993€(2002).€In€pertinent€part,€ðð€2102€(b)(3)€(Trade€Negotiating€Objectives)€states:Ì€€Recognizing€that€United€States€law€as€a€whole€provides€a€high€level€of€protection€for€investment€...€the€principal€negotiating€objectives€of€the€United€States€regarding€foreign€investment€are€to€reduce€or€eliminate€artificial€or€trade„distorting€barriers€to€foreign€investment,€while€ensuring€that€foreign€investors,€in€the€United€States€are€not€accorded€greater€substantive€rights€with€respect€to€investment€protections€than€United€States€investors€in€the€United€States.€(emphasis€added)ÌÌ[FN285].€Similarly,€unlike€the€NAFTA,€the€FTAA€and€future€BITs,€might€carve€out€an€exception€for€"regulatory"€takings.€The€task€was€one€NAFTA's€drafters€contemplated€and€rejected€given€its€difficulty.€See€Daniel€Price,€NAFTA€Chapter€11„„Investor„State€Dispute€Settlement:€Frankenstein€or€Safety€Valve,€6€U.S.€Canada€L.J.€1,€2€(2001).€Fashioning€an€exception€that€is€too€broad€would€authorize€uncompensated€taking€to€a€far€greater€degree€than€may€be€desirable,€such€as€if€the€host€state€is€merely€required€to€identify€a€plausible€"health"€or€"safety"€rationale„„labels€that€are€sufficiently€elastic€to€invite€abuse;€exempting€too€few€instances€defeats€the€purpose;€for€example,€requiring€proof€that€substantial€damage€has€already€been€done,€and€that€no€less„disruptive€means€was€available,€might€discourage€robust€protective€measures€seasonably€implemented.€That€any€exception€should€require€non„discrimination€seems€uncontroversial,€but€even€that€predicate€may€be€challenging€to€apply,€for€example,€when€the€foreign€investor€occupies€the€entire€field€or€is€otherwise€the€only€enterprise€damaged€under€the€facts€at€hand.€See,€e.g.,€S.D.€Myers,€Award€on€Merits,€supra€note€31€(export€ban€only€impacted€claimant;€local€processors€did€not€export€material);€see€also€Metalclad,€Award,€supra€note€41€&&€109„12,€and€correspondence€on€file€with€the€author€(apparently€only€Metalclad's€facility€encompassed€by€ecology€zone).Ì€€An€attempt€to€establish€a€bias€against€regulatory€takings€is€found€in€the€Draft€U.S.„Singapore€Free€Trade€Agreement€(Mar.€7,€2003€version),€which€carries€an€expropriation€provision€(Article€15.6)€that€replicates„„though€with€more€simplicity„„the€central€features€of€Article€1110.€It€is,€however,€subject€to€a€letter€of€understanding„„also€in€draft„„that€addresses€regulatory€takings€as€follows:Ì€€Except€in€rare€circumstances,€nondiscriminatory€regulatory€actions€by€a€Party€that€are€designed€and€applied€to€protect€legitimate€public€welfare€objectives,€such€as€public€health,€safety€and€the€environment,€do€not€constitute€indirect€expropriations.ÌDraft€Letter€of€March€7,€2003€Confirming€Understanding€on€Article€15.€6(1)€Draft„„U.S.€Free€Trade€Agreement,€available€at€http://www.ustr.gov€(last€visited€Sept.€11,€2003).ÌÌ[FN286].€See€discussion€infra€Section€VI.H.ÌÌ[FN287].€See€supra€note€57,€infra€note€288€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN288].€S.D.€Myers,€Inc.€(SDMI),€a€company€based€in€Ohio€was€a€prominent€operator€of€polychlorinated€biphenyl€(PCB)€disposal€facilities€in€the€United€States.€It€planned€to€process,€in€Ohio,€PCB€waste€that€had€accumulated€in€Canada,€thereby€exploiting€competitive€advantages€it€enjoyed.€After€the€U.S.€EPA€had€granted€SDMI€permission€to€import€PCB€waste,€Canada's€Minister€of€the€Environment€prohibited€export€of€PCB€waste.€The€border€remained€closed€to€PCB€exports€until€February€1997.Ì€€In€October€1998,€SDMI€submitted€a€Chapter€11€claim,€alleging€breaches,€inter€alia,€of€Articles€1102€(national€treatment)€and€1105€(international€minimum€standard€including€fair€and€equitable€treatment).€SDMI€succeeded,€receiving€in€its€favor€a€partial€award€on€the€merits.€In€finding€a€violation€of€Canada's€"treatment€no€less€favorable"€undertaking,€the€tribunal€reasoned€that€Article€1102's€"in€like€circumstances"€qualification€invited€consideration€of€the€measure€in€relation€to€the€Canadian€operators€in€claimant's€sector€to€assess€whether€its€practical€effect€was€to€give€a€disproportionate€benefit€to€them€in€relation€to€non„nationals,€whether€the€measure's€animus€was€protectionism,€and€whether€any€legitimate€purposes€that€were€served€by€the€measure€could€have€been€achieved€by€means€more€consonant€with€the€NAFTA.Ì€€The€tribunal€found€that€the€government€primarily€sought€to€ensure€that€Canadian€PCB€waste€would€be€processed€in€Canada,€by€Canadians,€rather€than€to€mitigate€an€environmental€risk.€Though€the€measure€had€a€legitimate€secondary€aim„„preserving€an€intra„Canada€capacity€to€process€PCB€waste„„that€aim€could€have€been€furthered€by€measures€consistent€with€NAFTA.€The€tribunal's€more€controversial€ruling€related€to€Article€1105.€It€concluded€that€the€violation€of€Article€1102,€in€essence,€also€established€a€violation€of€Article€1105.€See€supra€notes€222„27€and€accompanying€text.Ì€€As€to€some€of€its€findings,€the€award€was€formed€only€by€a€majority.ÌÌ[FN289].€This€segment€of€my€article€builds€in€part€upon€Coe,€supra€note€8.ÌÌ[FN290].€See€id.€at€188„91.ÌÌ[FN291].€See€Coe,€supra€note€43,€at€144„46;€Albert€Jan€van€den€Berg,€Refusals€of€Enforcement€under€the€New€York€Convention€of€1958„„The€Unfortunate€Few,€in€ICC€Arb.€Next€Decade€75€(1999).ÌÌ[FN292].€See€generally€William€W.€Park,€Why€Courts€Review€Arbitral€Awards,€in€Law€of€International€Business€and€Dispute€Settlement€in€the€21st€Century:€Liber€Amicorum€Karl€Heinz€Bochstiegel€595€(2001).ÌÌ[FN293].€UNCITRAL€Model€Law€on€International€Commercial€Arbitration,€adopted€June€21,€1985,€available€at€http://www.uncitral.org,€reprinted€in€Coe,€supra€note€28,€at€505€[hereinafter€Model€Law].ÌÌ[FN294].€A€central€theme€in€Metalclad's€argument€was€that€a€forfeiture€of€the€right€to€operate€induced€by€a€combination€of€an€unclear€regulatory€regime€and€governmental€assurances€is€simply€unfair.€It€referred€to€the€opacity€in€the€permitting€regime€as€among€other€things,€a€problem€of€"transparency,"€and€cited€awards€in€which€tribunals€compensated€aliens€for€lost€property€rights€precipitated€by€confused€or€impenetrable€regulation.€See€Owners€of€the€Tattler€(U.S.€v.€U.K.),€6€R.I.A.A.€48€(1920);€Marguerite€de€Joly€de€Sabla€(U.S.€v.€Pan.),€6€R.€Int'l€Arb.€Awards€358€(1933).€Mexico€countered€by€arguing€that€the€regime€could€have€been€deciphered€by€normal€due€diligence€and€that,€regardless,€transparency€is€not€expressly€guaranteed€to€investors€under€Chapter€11.Ì€€In€its€unanimous€award,€Metalclad€the€tribunal€explicitly€found€transparency€to€be€an€obligation€that€could€be€enforced€by€a€Chapter€11€claimant,€at€least€in€the€circumstance€where€the€investor€had€made€the€relevant€organs€of€government€aware€of€the€problem€and€had€received€largely€informal€but€reassuring€guidance€upon€which€to€proceed.€See€Metalclad,€Award,€supra€note€41.Ì€€Though,€ostensibly,€a€private€claimant€would€not€ordinarily€be€entitled€to€directly€enforce€obligations€owed€only€among€the€three€states€inter€se,€in€construing€Article€1105,€the€Metalclad€tribunal€was€informed€in€part€by€Mexico's€Chapter€18€undertakings€and€the€importance€attributed€to€"transparency"€as€a€"principle"€linked€to€achieving€NAFTA's€aims.€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€102(1).€Though€explicitly€construing€Article€1105,€the€tribunal€cited,€without€quotation,€Article€1802(1),€which€requires€NAFTA€states€to€promptly€publish€or€otherwise€make€available€to€"interested€persons"€"laws,€regulations,€procedures€and€administrative€rulings€of€general€application€respecting€any€matter€covered€by€the€[NAFTA]"€and€to€do€so€"in€such€a€manner€as€to€enable€[said]€persons€...€to€become€acquainted€with€them."€Id.Ì€€While€some€of€the€interim€steps€are€left€to€inference€by€the€award,€it€is€clear€that€for€the€Metalclad€tribunal,€where€the€host€state€had€failed€to€fulfill€its€Chapter€18€transparency€obligations,€and€failed€to€mitigate€the€consequences€of€that€inter„state€breach€in€its€dealings€with€an€investor,€that€failing€may€contribute€to€a€"totality€of€circumstances"€in€which€fair€and€equitable€treatment€had€not€been€practiced.€See€generally€Coe,€supra€note€45,€at€70„75.€Mexico's€attack€on€the€award€was€that€the€tribunal€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€by€relying€on€transparency€obligations€found€outside€of€Chapter€11.€Mexico€v.€Metalclad,€Petitioner's€Outline€of€Argument,€&&242„72€(on€file€with€the€author).Ì€€Justice€Tysoe,€though€considering€a€unanimous€award,€accorded€no€particular€deference€to€the€tribunal's€treaty€construction.€He€adopted€in€significant€part€Mexico's€view€that€the€transparency€principle€had€been€improperly€imported€from€Chapter€18.€The€case€well€illustrates€how€a€determination€on€the€merits,€if€difficult€for€the€reviewing€domestic€court€to€reconstruct,€may€succumb€to€what€is€in€theory€a€jurisdictional€analysis.€See€Coe,€supra€note€8,€at€197„98,€202„€03.ÌÌ[FN295].€See€Westerbeke€Corp.€v.€Daihatsu€Motor€Co.,€162€F.€Supp.€2d€278€€(S.D.N.Y.€2001),€rev'd,€2002€WL€1978908€(2d€Cir.€2002);€see€generally€Hans€Smit,€Is€Manifest€Disregard€of€the€Law€or€the€Evidence€or€Both€a€Ground€for€Vacatur€of€an€Arbitral€Award?,€8€Am.€Rev.€Int'l€Arb.€341€(1997).ÌÌ[FN296].€See€Cortez€Byrd€Chips,€Inc.€v.€Bill€Harbert€Constr.€Co.,€529€U.S.€193€(2000)€(finding€FAA€venue€provisions€permissive€and€general€venue€provisions€to€supplement€FAA);€see€also€Park€et€al.,€supra€note€254,€nn.12„14€and€accompanying€text€(discussing€the€effects€of€Cortez).ÌÌ[FN297].€See€Coe,€supra€note€8,€at€199;€Thomas,€Reply€to€Professor€Brower,€supra€note€9,€at€453,€457€n.95.ÌÌ[FN298].€See€generally€Myers,€supra€note€68.ÌÌ[FN299].€Consider€the€disappointed€investor€in€Loewen.€In€deciding€whether€to€seek€setting€aside€of€the€tribunal's€recent€award,€it€confronts,€apart€from€purely€juridical€elements,€the€considerations€that€the€attack€would€be€against€the€United€States,€would€be€brought€in€U.S.€courts,€and€would€be€seeking€conceivably€a€fresh,€second€opportunity€to€arbitrate€government€responsibility€for€the€defects€in€a€Mississippi€state€court's€handling€of€a€jury€trail,€in€a€setting€in€which€review€by€the€U.€S.€Supreme€Court€was€not€sought€by€the€claimant.€Despite€the€injustice€chronicled€by€the€arbitrators,€even€before€it€consults€the€pro„finality€doctrines€of€U.S.€law,€the€investor€might€suspect€that€its€case€is€viscerally€unappealing.ÌÌ[FN300].€See€Park,€supra€note€286.€See€generally€W.€Michael€Riesman,€€Control€Mechanisms€in€International€Dispute€Resolution,€2€U.S.„Mex.€L.J.€129€(1994).ÌÌ[FN301].€.Elihu€Lauterpacht,€Aspects€of€the€Administration€of€International€Justice€79€(1991).€Similar€perceptions€have€perpetuated€the€party„appointed€arbitrator€model€prevailing€in€international€commercial€arbitration.€No€reason€appears€why€some€form€of€disputants'€participation€in€the€reviewing€body's€composition€is€not€capable€of€being€manageably€accommodated€without€detracting€from€its€skill€and€independence.€Much€will€depend,€however,€on€the€size€of€the€chamber€that€becomes€the€standard.€If€only€three€panelists€serve,€it€may€be€preferable€to€limit€disputant€input€to€collaboration€in€appointing€the€chair€from€a€designated€list€of€body€members.ÌÌ[FN302].€See€Coe,€supra€note€8,€at€199€n.96.ÌÌ[FN303].€This€would€be€less€so€if€post„review€awards€qualified€for€ICSID€Convention€treatment.€A€related€question€is€whether€ICSID€awards€would€be€subject€to€review€by€the€entity€under€consideration€here,€in€lieu€of€the€ICSID€Convention€annulment€procedure€currently€available.€One€approach€is€to€let€the€moving€party€elect€one€or€the€other€annulment€procedure,€but€not€both,€when€the€award€is€issued€under€the€Convention.€Such€variations€on€the€ICSID€model€might€well€require€treaty€undertakings€supplemental€to€the€ICSID€Convention.ÌÌ[FN304].€See€Coe,€supra€note€8,€at€202„03€(discussing€the€problem€of€€"expertise€inversion").ÌÌ[FN305].€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€arts.102(1)(e),€1115.ÌÌ[FN306].€Cf.€Howard€M.€Holtzmann,€A€Task€for€the€21st€Century:€Creating€a€New€International€Court€for€Resolving€Disputes€on€the€Enforceability€of€Arbitral€Awards,€in€The€Internationalization€of€International€Arbitration€109€(Martin€Hunter€et€al.€eds.,€1995)€(proposing€creation€of€an€international€court€for€enforcement€and€set€aside€of€arbitration€awards);€H.E.€Judge€Stephen€M.€Schwebel,€The€Creation€and€Operation€of€an€International€Court€of€Arbitral€Awards,€id.€at€115€(discussing€treaty€implementation€of€Judge€Holtzmann's€proposal).ÌÌ[FN307].€For€discussions€of€the€role€of€international€law€before€WTO€dispute€bodies,€see€generally€James€Cameron€and€Kevin€R.€Gray,€Principles€of€International€Law€in€the€WTO€Dispute€Settlement€Body,€50€Int'l€&€Comp.€L.Q.€248€(2001);€Joost€Pauwelyn,€The€Role€of€Public€International€Law€in€the€WTO:€How€Far€Can€We€Go,€95€Am.€J.€Int'l€L.€535€(2001).ÌÌ[FN308].€My€premise€is€that€disputants€opt€for€the€more€costly€three„arbitrator€tribunals€in€light€of€the€finality€of€awards€and€prospect€that€a€single€arbitrator,€if€misapprehending€governing€law,€can€do€lasting€harm.ÌÌ[FN309].€See€Model€Law,€supra€note€293,€art.€34(4).ÌÌ[FN310].€Id.ÌÌ[FN311].€See€supra€notes€8,€12„13€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN312].€See€supra€notes€30,€135„39,€288„302€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN313].€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1120;€supra€note€11€and€accompanying€text.ÌÌ[FN314].€See€ICSID€Convention,€supra€note€10,€art.€55.ÌÌ[FN315].€Id.€art.€54(1).ÌÌ[FN316].€See€Merrills,€supra€note€160,€at€140„45€(discussing€ICJ€Chambers).ÌÌ[FN317].€The€ICJ€statute,€art.€26€already€authorizes€formation€of€chambers,€both€ad€hoc€(for€the€particular€case)€and€standing€(such€as€for€environmental€disputes).€See€Collier€&€Lowe,€supra€note€160,€at€127„29.€The€success€of€a€chamber€dedicated€to€investment€award€review€would€naturally€depend€heavily€on€chamber€composition,€especially€if€that€review€is€to€include€consideration€of€the€merits.€Cf.€Highnet,€supra€note€165,€at€41€(business€expertise);€and€see€Phoebe€N.€Okowa,€Environmental€Dispute€Settlement:€Some€Reflections€on€Recent€Developments,€in€Remedies€in€International€Law€157,€168€(Malcom€Evans€ed.€1998)€(expressing€doubts€about€level€of€subject€matter€expertise€of€ICJ's€environmental€disputes€chamber).ÌÌ[FN318].€See€Jeffrey€Bleich,€A€New€Direction€for€the€PCA:€The€Work€of€the€Expert€Group,€in€The€Flame€Rekindled€17,€41€(Sam€Muller€&€Wim€Mijs€eds.€1994)€(observing€that€the€PCA€can€do€more€to€address€need€for€state/non„state€disputes);€see€also€Tjaco€T.€Van€den€Hout,€Introduction,€in€Institutional€and€Procedural€Aspects€of€Mass€Claims€settlement€Systems€vii€(PCA€ed.,€2000)€(mentioning€desire€that€PCA€be€utilized€more€fully);€Alan€Redfern€&€Martin€Hunter,€Law€and€Practice€of€International€Commercial€Arbitration€58€(3d€ed.€1999)€(finding€much€to€commend€PCA€arbitration);€cf.€PCA€Optional€Rules€for€Arbitrating€Disputes€Between€Two€Parties€of€Which€Only€One€Is€a€State,€reprinted€in€Coe,€supra€note€28,€at€729.ÌÌ[FN319].€A€two„tiered€format€in€which€the€first€instance€is€essentially€the€present€Chapter€11€system€retrains€for€the€disputants€the€option€to€agree€to€cut€costs€by€having€only€one€arbitrator€in€the€first€instance,€which€they€might€be€willing€to€do€because€of€the€safeguard€of€an€appellate€level.€A€first€instance€standing€tribunal€could€of€course€build€that€option€in€as€well,€perhaps€making€that€the€norm€for€disputes€below€a€certain€amount€in€controversy.ÌÌ[FN320].€See€Dodge,€Metalclad€Note,€supra€note€57,€at€918€(appellate€body€could€be€given€power€to€correct€errors€of€law);€Coe,€supra€note€8,€at€206„07;€cf.€Frederick€Abbott,€The€Political€Economy€of€NAFTA€Chapter€Eleven:€Equality€Before€the€Law€and€the€Boundaries€of€North€American€Integration,€23€Hastings€Int'l€&€Comp.€L.€Rev.€303,€309€(1999)€("preferable€that€due€process€challenges€be€referred€to€...€commission€of€Supreme€Court€Justices").ÌÌ[FN321].€See€NAFTA,€supra€note€1,€art.€1126€(Consolidation).ÌÌ[FN322].€See,€e.g.,€Evicted,€Cal.€Law.€34€(Aug.€2001)€(discussing€Punta€Banda€dispute,€Adams€v.€Mexico,€a€pending„„but€not€quickly€advancing„„Chapter€11€arbitration€involving€multiple€landowner€claimants).ÌÌ[FN323].€Cf.€Guidelines€for€Arbitrating€Small€Claims€under€the€ICC€Rules,€14(1)€ICC€Ct.€Arb.€Bull.€(2003)€(relating€task€force€guidelines€addressing€special€considerations€affecting€smaller€claims;€specific€to€ICC€Rules).ÌÌEND€OF€DOCUMENTÌÇÓ  ÓÓ *ÈÓ*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*ÌÌà@ à773892€„€COE,€JACK€JˆÌÌDate€and€Time€Printing€Started:à à09/16/2004à à08:03:20€pm€(Central)ÌÌDate€and€Time€Printing€Ended:à à09/16/2004à à08:03:25€pm€(Central)ÌÌOffline€Transmission€Time:à àà à00:00:05ÌÌNumber€of€Requests€in€Group:à à€€€€€€€1ÌÌNumber€of€Lines€Charged:à à€€€€3528ÌÌ*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*Ì