I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Pursuant to Procedural Order No. 1, Claimant, Detroit International Bridge Company (“DIBC”), by undersigned counsel, respectfully presents this submission on the place of arbitration.

2. Under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules”), the place of arbitration is the jurisdiction that will govern enforcement of the Tribunal’s ultimate decision. As such, it is of importance to the fairness of this proceeding that the jurisdiction selected as the place of arbitration be neutral, both in appearance and in fact. In addition, the selected jurisdiction should have demonstrated respect for the arbitral process and enforcement of arbitral decisions. This decision does not determine where hearings or other physical proceedings will be held, a decision that may be made separately.

3. The United States is the better jurisdiction for enforcing the Tribunal’s decision in this arbitration. The United States has been recognized by prior Tribunals as a neutral location, and Washington, D.C. specifically has been recognized as a neutral location because of the presence there of international bodies such as the World Bank. The United States is not a party to the proceedings, and is adverse to DIBC in pending litigation in the United States, thus eliminating any likelihood that it would favor DIBC as a United States entity in a later enforcement action. The United States also has a robust history of enforcing arbitral awards consistent with the New York Convention.

4. In contrast, Canada is a party to the proceedings and its government has shown direct animosity towards DIBC, including by recently passing legislation that prevents DIBC (or anyone) from filing legal or regulatory challenges to an unnecessary, Canadian-owned bridge named alternatively the “New International Trade Crossing” (“NITC”) or the “Detroit River International Crossing” (“DRIC”) (referred to collectively herein as the “NITC/DRIC”), which is a subject of this arbitration. The Prime Minister of Canada has even publicly disparaged the owners of DIBC, an unusual occurrence that seriously calls into question Canada’s neutrality in these proceedings. In addition, Canada’s courts do not have a strong history of enforcing international arbitration awards against Canada, and Canada in the past has argued that NAFTA Tribunals “should not attract extensive judicial deference and should not be protected by a high standard of judicial review.” Outline of Argument of Intervenor Attorney General of Canada, United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corp., No. L002904 (S.C.B.C. Feb. 16, 2001) (attached as CLA-1) at p. 10 ¶ 30.

5. Under these circumstances, DIBC respectfully requests that the Tribunal select a location within the United States—preferably Washington, D.C. (or New York, N.Y.)––as the place of arbitration for this proceeding.