Introduction 

1. After exchanging views with my distinguished colleagues in the manner described at paragraph 124 of the Decision on Jurisdiction, I have found that I do not agree with their interpretation of the Treaty. There are many points made in the Decision with which I agree, and other points with which I would have agreed had I concurred with their interpretation, but in the end I have a different view. I do however subscribe to the Decision‟s dispositions of the Second Objection, the rejection of the declaration sought in respect of the Centre‟s jurisdiction and the deferral of the consideration of the “contract claims and double recovery” issue.1 

2. I can readily see how my colleagues have formed a different view on the MFN issue. The reason why the MFN clause has been invoked of course is that the Respondent has agreed to different investment protection treaties with different arbitral regimes. Had it maintained a single treaty model, the MFN issue would not arise in the first place. Thus, when, as here, the basic treaty requires a claimant to submit the dispute to the respondent‟s local courts for a period of time while another treaty concluded by the respondent does not contain the requirement, it is not difficult to conclude that many, if not all, putative claimants would prefer the latter. Some tribunals, including the present one, have agreed, emphasizing the value of such a choice from the claimant‟s perspective.2