Investment treaty tribunals commonly consider the parties’ contemporaneous practice in concluding investment treaties as a reflection of the parties’ general policies relating to such treaties, and thus as part of the circumstances of the conclusion of a treaty, in order to confirm the interpretation of its provisions. See, e.g., KT Asia Investment Group B. V. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/8, Award (17 Oct. 2013), para. 123
("the Tribunal’s reading of the treaty language is further strengthened if one bears in mind that in twenty-four Kazakh BITs the Respondent has agreed to the same test as in the present one... while in ten other BITs it has added a requirement...."); Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction (8 Feb. 2005), para. 195
("treaties between one of the Contracting Parties and third States may be taken into account for the purpose of clarifying the meaning of a treaty’s text at the time it was entered into"); id.,
para. 196 (taking into account, as a circumstance of the conclusion of the Bulgaria-Cyprus BIT, that, ‘[a]t that time, Bulgaria was under a communist regime that favored bilateral investment treaties with limited protections for foreign investors and with very limited dispute resolution provisions"); Winter shall Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic,
ICSID Case No. ARB/04/14, Award (8 Dec. 2008), n. 147 (referring to BITs entered by Argentina with third States as relevant to confirm whether Argentina had a "policy" with respect to the provision at issue, and emphasizing the importance of "contemporaneity" in the interpretation of a treaty: "it must be construed as at the time it was entered into."); see also National Grid plc v. Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction (20 June 2006), paras. 84-85
(considering the treaty practice of the parties to the UK-Argentina BIT in interpreting that BIT’s MFN clause); Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (21 Oct. 2005), para. 293
("Most relevant to an assessment of state practice possibly bearing on the 1992 Bolivia-Netherlands BIT are those BITs which were negotiated contemporaneously in the early 1990s."); id.,
paras. 294-314 (analyzing the Dutch and Bolivian investment treaty practice). Hence the relevance of the other Turkmen treaty practice, all of which permits the choice of the forum for international arbitration without any mandatory reference to Turkmen courts, and complete paucity of any evidence to the contrary is compelling.