I. INTRODUCTION

1. I respectfully dissent from the Award on Jurisdiction (“Award”) because I believe it misconstrues the Argentina-Germany BIT (“Treaty”) with respect to the effect of the Treaty’s Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) clause on that Treaty’s clause requiring that Claimant take its claim to the host State’s courts for 18 months prior to resorting to arbitration (“18-month domestic courts clause” or “18-month clause”).1

II. THE FLAWS IN THE AWARD’S ANALYSIS

2. I cannot accept the leap the Award makes between its general references to the requirement that a State consent in order to be bound by its international obligations, including resort to arbitration, and the Award’s ex cathedra pronouncement of an interpretive presumption requiring that consent to international arbitration via an MFN clause “requires affirmative evidence.”2 I address this analytical flaw at some length because, despite the Award’s protestations to the contrary, it effectively endorses the otherwise discredited holding in Plama that “the intention to incorporate dispute settlement provisions [into MFN clauses] must be clearly and unambiguously expressed.”3