I concur in Parts I–VIII of the Award, in the conclusion to Part IX, and in the Decision. I write separately because I believe the majority’s discussion of the “Countermeasures Defence” clouds the essential feature of investor-State arbitration, as it has developed since the ICSID Convention of 1965, the very large number of Bilateral Investment Treaties, and Chapter Eleven of the NAFTA. The essence of each of these arrangements is that controversies between foreign investors and host states are insulated from political and diplomatic relations between states. In return for agreeing to independent international arbitration, the host state is assured that the state of the investor’s nationality (as defined) will not espouse the investor’s claim or otherwise intervene in the controversy between an investor and a host state, for instance by denying foreign assistance or attempting to pressure the host state into some kind of settlement. Correspondingly, the state of the investor’s nationality is relieved of the pressure of having its relations with the host state disturbed or distorted by a controversy between its national and the host state.