what this comes down to despite the large number of arguments presented on both sides is really a question of the interpretation of a contract the biological investment treaty is a contract between two countries in this case kyrgyzstan and turkey  the wording that is a matter of contention the meaning of which was in the order before you launch into that neither side addressed to recent decisions of our court the mobile several negro versus venezuela and c b s industrial which were both decided in two thousand and seventeen which suggests that the foreign sovereign immunity is act this is the sole award against a foreign sovereign you have to follow the procedures in the foreign sovereign muni's that including venue you know venue being and unless there are strong connections ask for some supplemental submissions i think i don't want to go ahead we'll be happy to do there on the out what you said if it is contractual or if it is something like interpretation of contract or if it is for prudential we comes down to something very close haven't you at least forfeited if not waived by not making the argument you are making now before be arbitrators under our cases don't you have to say to the arbitrators this could not be done under v additional but could dump be done under view other rather than just then making it later down there you made where the jurisdiction of well what if you you argued there that it couldn't be brought under center bridge well what you're saying now is that it had to be brought under center because of this particular contract who will arrangement that you say takes over over what was the treaty  if you don't make that to be arbitrators where we say most such arguments are at least forfeited it's not necessarily say waived if they're not made  isn't that it then become to us at least a question of plain error and if it's plain or the nature of this uncertain you yourself said on certain keeps it from being played  claiming that both types of arbitration or center arbitrations which would make an objection to centers jurisdiction over the parties in compass both of them now were of course arguing that there is a distinction because there is a treaty that explicitly lists those facilities and organizations under  which arbitrations laura greed to which is where we get to the question of interpretation when we find it and we submit that it's very puzzling that the court below having apparently quite carefully reviewed the different bilateral investment treaties submitted by helen came to the conclusion that because they were more all different therefore there wasn't any conclusion to be drawn that was relevant to the meaning of this one well in the first instance  they're not all different and they're not all different in the explicit language that is of importance here which is that in every case terms and where it didn't it did not and there is a very large difference between the two respondents try very hard to conflate the two but they are in fact utterly different in fact the the it's alternate facility roles explicitly are in place to to to apply to arbitration was it was either included or not include expressly hence our invocation of the express only its principle which we think is absolutely central your honors may please the court i'm happy to address the preliminary issues you mention first yes this court has jurisdiction over this case under section sixteen zero five eight six of the foreign sovereign immunity is act that's a provision that express the gives court s jurisdiction notwithstanding sovereign immunity in cases to enforce arbitron the words under the new york convention i understand that but but to get enforcement of an arbitration award you have to go through the f and and there are certain procedures that apply and where those procedures follow this case yes they were the difference between this case and mobile serial near grow and the reason why the issues there don't rise here is was an exit convention case and in convention cases there's a distinct excited regime for enforcing awards in u s courts and there was an issue in that case about whether that regime itself abrogated sovereign immunity this case is different because it involves additional facility and additional facility awards are not enforced under the exit regime the reinforced under the new york convention the same as any other arbitral award so there's never been any dispute that we're relying on the new york convention and section zero five eighty six as a basis for overcoming immunity in this case the republics never once argued that it has any plausible sovereign immunity defense in light of sixteen zero five eight six and because of the distinction in the enforcement regimes between convention awards and additional facility awards the issues that this court confronted in the mobile sarah negril case just don't arise here with respect to venue they did make a venue objection below that was specifically ruled upon by the district court the district court rejected the venue argument on two alternative grounds one because it hadn't been timely pled below they did not make a venue object and within the time required for making such objections under the political rules and second the district court rejected it based on the court statutory interpretation of the relevant venue provision they did not appeal that ruling to this court venue was not jurisdictional so having made the argument below and declined to appeal it that's been waived and it would be inappropriate to allow them to now resurrect that argument when they specifically declined to raise it on appeal it is not a jurisdictional issue turning then to the merits of the case and i think there is a very straightforward result way to resolve this case which is the one that judge calibrates he raised and that's that this court has been very clear that to preserve an objection during an arbitration it's not enough just to make an on the bus objection to jurisdiction or object on one ground and then raise a completely new ground later on in the enforcement proceedings you must actually state the basis for the objection that was not done here the republicans never claimed that it did it here during the arbitration it objected to the jurisdiction of the tribunal on completely different grounds that have nothing to do with the argument it raises now and so directly a full waiver not a forfeiture the problem of a contractual one is that they said below we are not bound to arbitrate which means that they negated be existence of a contract to make sure the little harder to make the quite strong and says that we will no i agree and i take your point but on the facts of this case and in arbitration cases generally this court has taken a quite a strong view even of that credential waiver and the reason for that is  it's this was an arbitration that began thirteen years ago they are now seeking to start that process all over again thirteen years later on the basis of an argument they never made and their failure to make that argument earlier has been seriously prejudicial to us because if they had raised it at the time there are any number of things we could have done to have responded in a way that obviated the issue this investment treaty permits arbitration in three different forms so if they didn't like that additional facility we could have just you know relied on its jurisdiction under one of the other a political instruments the law an investment explicitly authorizes additional facility jurisdiction and so the tribunal could've and in fact the tribunal found that it had jurisdiction under that statute so had tribunal also could have accept that argument under the most favored nation clause of the bit so there were multiple other grounds for jurisdiction we presented in the arbitration and had this argument been timely raise the tribunal could have assessed it could have either rejected  accepted up on the merits or could have just obviated this by grounding its jurisdiction somewhere else because we had multiple different grounds for arguing that jurisdiction in the tribunal and by not giving the tribunal that opportunity that republics now too so whether it's a prudential issue or a contractual issue this is about as strong a case as i can possibly imagine for enforcing a waiver principle the courts have repeatedly found that the failure to challenge jurisdiction failure to make your specific jurisdictional objection during the arbitration waves that argument for later reasons and there are good and sound reasons for that we have a rule and they apply with full force to these proceedings and that waiver issue is sufficient standing alone to reject the republican position in this case i'll speak briefly to the merits of the arguments that were raised here again issues the court doesn't need to reach based on the waiver issues that we think on the on the merits the district court wrote a thorough and persuasive opinion on that issue too because it really does come down to the plain language of this particular agreement and i couldn't agree more with mr mcrae that convention arbitration and additional facility arbitration are different animals the important point is that those are just two types of exit arbitration it's that administers convention arbitration and it's that administers additional facility arbitration and so if you have a treaty that authorizes exit arbitration without narrowing that to put to a particular type of exit arbitration or a particular set of rules then the consequence of that is eve agreed to exit arbitration broadly using a th shows that we do say that and bites and that's just a question of it's plain terms the treaty you know unlike the treaties that mr mcrae cites the ones where that republic actually limits itself to a particular type of  that arbitration this treaty does not do that and i think this this contract is put pretty illuminating because they pointed to two treaties below that that narrow the type of proceedings one is the in the news or treaty and that one authorizes arbitration before and then it has the key phrase under the convention on the settlement investment disputes so that's an example of language that specifically limits the rules that apply and says the arbitration will be done under the convention the other example is the latvia treaty and that one authorizes arbitration before exit having regard to the apply couple provisions of the convention so there are two it is authorizing arbitration but only according to particular rules if that's what the draft people wanted to do with respect to this treaty that that's the kind of language they would have used but this treaty just doesn't have that it refers to arbitration before x that the entity set up by the convention but you know that's certainly true regardless of which which type of proceeding you're and in the event that both parties become signatory to the convention and again that clearly happened here too so the treaty language here is different from those other two treaties in precisely where it counts because in those treaties it modifies the rules that apply to the proceeding and there's no similar language in this treaty and as a result this treaty authorizes it's the arbitration broadly without limitation as to whether you're going to apply convention proceedings or additional facility proceedings unless you want to have any furthe treaty in question here is in the event that both parties become signatories to the convention now it's just him has or good is that this  provision as a whole covers both regular extrude convention proceedings and alternate facility proceedings language implicitly ex clues alternate facility arbitration because our alternate facility arbitration explicitly refers to the parties not both being party to the convention so i believe that the argument goes is upside down as articulate the tribunals determined that the lone investment applied as a separate ground for jurisdiction i i don't have the decision in front of me but i think it should be very clear that when if and when the court reads that they expressly klein to rule on yellow  explicitly permitted under the b r t here that's exactly our point well but that doesn't that go to forfeiture and he argues if there were these other things and you conceded then head you raised to be argument wouldn't they have been able to do it rather than coming up to us for thirteen years later and now saying oh too bad well your other thirteen years is a bit of a red herring i don't know why it took that long to get before this court i only began working on this case than two years ago but in any rate i'm sorry the idea is to raise it at that time so however many years thirteen years ain't that long for me but that you're out of the the point is not the amount of time that has gone by the point here is that they have they chose the one form of arbitration that was not agreed to and the b i t and that's a fundamental basis for lack of was pleaded even if they didn't use the words alternate dispute resolution rules the fact is that they did argue jurisdiction and i don't know if you're satisfied with mr cries suggestion but but since you haven't read the cases take a look at mobile several name grow which is eight sixty three after ninety six and b f industrial which is eight fifty f third fifty eight both decided in two thousand and seventeen it goes to jurisdiction and so even though he didn't raise it i don't know that it's waived but but if you think they are relevant if you're not satisfied with the explanation submit something to us no more than ten pages one week from today and