This case presents the Court with its first oppor-tunity to consider and determine the standards U.S. courts should use when deciding whether to confirm an investor-state arbitral award rendered against a sovereign State under a treaty, here a bilateral in-vestment treaty (BIT), where the State disputes hav-ing consented to the arbitration at issue. This Court’s decision, in turn, may impact the foreign rela-tions of the United States in its dealings with other nations under existing or prospective treaties govern-ing their investment disputes with U.S. investors as well as investment disputes between their nationals and the United States. It also may influence how for-eign courts treat the United States in analogous cir-cumstances. With the number of investor-state trea-ty arbitrations—and, accordingly, award confirma-tion proceedings—on the rise, it is important for this Court to articulate workable and sensible standards for U.S. courts to apply when determining whether a State has truly consented to arbitration. 

Amicus curiae The Republic of Ecuador is a sover-eign State. Ecuador is party to numerous BITs, in-cluding with the United States. See Treaty Concern-ing the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, U.S.-Ecuador, Aug. 27, 1993, S. Treaty Doc. 103-15 (U.S.-Ecuador BIT). In fact, the U.S.-Ecuador BIT was the United States’ first such treaty with an Andean Pact country and only the second to be signed with a South American country. Moreover, Ecuador has faced proceedings brought in U.S. court to confirm a BIT-based arbitral award rendered against it. See Chevron Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2013 WL 2449172 (D.D.C. June 6, 2013) (confirming award).2 

Ecuador agrees with the United States that it is inappropriate to apply this Court’s private arbitra-tion precedents in the context of treaty arbitration. See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Vacatur and Remand (filed Sept. 3, 2013) (U.S. Br.). Rather, treaty interpretation principles should govern a reviewing court’s consideration of a State’s objection that it did not consent to arbitrate a particular investor-state dispute (thus preventing an agreement to arbitrate from being formed), and such review should be de novo. Because the D.C. Circuit’s analysis aligned with those principles, it reached the right result. Consequently, this Court should affirm the ruling below in favor of Respondent The Republic of Argentina.