(P.153) [They] were born of Mongolian public law and raise exclusively issues of non-compliance with Mongolian public law, including Mongolian tax laws. All of these issues fall within the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction of Mongolian courts, are matters of Mongolian public law and cannot be regarded as an indivisible part of the applicants` claims on the basis of bit and international law or as the establishment of an appropriate link between the applicants` claims and the counter-claims that justify their joint consideration by an arbitration tribunal 341 [U]n dispute over a dispute over a dispute concerning (a) the interpretation or application of a particular investment agreement between a contracting party and an investor of the other contracting party; (b) the interpretation or application of any investment authorisation granted by the state authorities governing foreign investment; (c) the allegation of violation of any right or established by this Convention in the matter of investment. [An investment dispute is defined as a dispute involving: (a) the interpretation or application of a particular investment agreement between one party and an investor of the other party; (b) the interpretation or application of an investment authorization granted by the host state authorities for foreign investment; (c) the alleged violation of a right conferred or created by this investment agreement.] 216 (252) US-Estonia BIT, art. VI (3) (b) (More added mentions). See also G. Laborde, `The Case for Host State Claims in Investment Arbitration` (2010) 1(1) J. Int`l Disp. Settlement 97, 108 ([D] the majority of the bits closed by the United States contain a fundamentalist clause with a firm offer to grant an explicit power of arbitration against the host state”). On the other hand, contracts that limit the Tribunal`s jurisdiction to the obligations of the host state should restrict the right to subject only an investor to a procedure. The Energy Charter Treaty is an example of that. The definition of an arbitral dispute as a “violation of a [host state`s] obligation within the meaning of Part III [of the contract]” provides that “the investor involved in the dispute may decide to submit it to resolution [by an arbitration tribunal].”258 The NAFTA also does not provide for requests from host states to be invoked: an investor of one party (on behalf of a company of another party) 259 If the host Member State`s consent to the arbitration procedure is stipulated in an investment agreement and not an investment contract, the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal may, subject to the arbitration clause, extend, subject to the arbitration clause, to claims based on an international obligation to treat foreigners and their property in international law. an applicable investment contract obligation, contractual obligation, unlawful act, unjust enrichment or public act of the host Member State with respect to the measures taken by the host Member State with regard to the applicant`s investment63. (304) See Karrer, fn.

181, 177 (on the ground that, although a simple interpretation of the contract first suggested that whether the parties […] Jurisdictional agreements for different obligations […, if the parties are then in an arbitration proceeding or a dispute, but the jurisdiction of that court or state court should be extended to counterclaim.”