I. Introduction

1. The disputing parties were unable to agree on the place of arbitration in this matter.

2. On January 15, 2013, pursuant to paragraph 14(a) of Procedural Order No.1, the disputing parties filed their respective submissions conceming the place of arbitration. Their positions in this respect are summarized below (II), which is followed by the Tribunal's decision (III).

II. Summary of the Parties' Positions

(a) Claimant's position

3. Claimant alleges to have proposed to Respondent numerous locations as the place of arbitration, including London and Paris, and made clear that it was open to other neutral, non-NAFTA locations. Within the United States Claimant proposed Washington D.C. and New York, NY. Respondent met each of these proposals with a response that the arbitration be held in Canada. The only issue that the disputing parties were able to agree on is that the place of arbitration should not be in Mexico. 1

4. Claimant states that the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") provides that for arbitrations held under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules ("UNCITRAL Rules"), unless the disputing parties agree otherwise, a tribunal shall hold an arbitration in the territory of a NAFT A jurisdiction, selected in accordance with the UNCITRAL Rules. It further states that under the UNCITRAL Rules, "[Art. 18(1)] [i]fthe parties have not agreed on the place of arbitration, the place of arbitration shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal, having regard to the circumstances of the case.,,2