Summary

Source: icsid.worldbank.org

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. The Claimant's claims are not manifestly barred by article 2(1) of the BIT

A. Angola's attempt to unduly expand the effects of the principle of non-retroactivity must fail

1. Article 2(1) of the BIT simply restates the general principle of non-retroactivity
2. An interpretation of article 2(1) of the BIT, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms, does not support the Respondent's expansive interpretation of non- retroactivity
a. The Respondent's "entanglement" argument seeks to artificially shift the focus away from the relevant criterion stipulated in article 2(1) of the BIT: the timing of the facts
b. The Respondent's "double exclusion" argument attempts to obscure the ordinary meaning of article 2(1) of the BIT
3. All decisions that have dealt with the principle of non-retroactivity are relevant
4. The relevant test to determine whether a claim falls within the ratione temporis scope of the BIT is whether post-treaty facts constitute self-standing breaches

B. The Claimant's expropriation claim is based on a self-standing breach resulting from post- treaty acts and facts

1. The subject-matter of the Claimant's expropriation claim is straightforward
2. The Respondent incurs in gross fallacies and strawmen to distort the Claimant's case
3. Presidential Order 177/21 can be considered, at most, a preparatory act for the later expropriation
4. In any case, whether the post-treaty acts on which the expropriation claim is based in fact constitute self-standing breaches pertains to the merits, not to jurisdiction

C. The Claimant's FET and FPS claims also fall within the ratione temporis scope of the BIT20

III. The Respondent has not provided any reasons that might justify departing from the facts as alleged by the Claimant in the present proceedings

A. The claims brought in these proceedings are different from Aenergy's claims before the U.S. courts

B. No allegations made by Aenergy before the U.S. courts prevent Mr Machado from presenting its claims and allegations before this Tribunal

IV. The Respondent's argument that the Claimant manifestly lacks standing to bring his FET and FPS claims is belated and, in any case, wrong

V. The Respondent's remaining allegations are smoke and mirrors and factually wrong

VI. Costs

VII. The Claimant's request for relief