As noted above, the Tribunal does not intend to discuss again questions that have been amply considered in recent decisions and which have been also extensively argued by the parties in this case. These questions are mainly the following:
• The role of Argentine legislation in a determination concerning corporate personality for the purpose of an international claim. It has been concluded in this respect that the applicable provisions in respect of jurisdiction and admissibility are only those of the ICSID Convention and the Bilateral Investment Treaty. This same conclusion stands for the argument that Argentine legislation would be the applicable law under Article 42 of the Convention, as this Article is designed to govern the applicable law in connection with the merits but not in respect of questions of jurisdiction.
• The meaning and effect of international law in respect of the rights of minority and non-controlling shareholders to claim independently of a separate corporate entity for the measures that affect their investment. This right has been upheld both under international law and the ICSID Convention.
• The meaning of the Barcelona Traction decision,6 which has been held not to be controlling in investment claims such as the present one, as it deals with the separate question of diplomatic protection in a particular setting.
• The meaning of a number of decisions issued by ICSID tribunals that have upheld the right of shareholders to claim independently from the affected corporation, but have not considered the question of minority or non-controlling shareholders in itself,7 with few exceptions.8 This Tribunal also notes that the Argentine Republic disagrees with the conclusions of those tribunals or with the relevance of their decisions to the present case.