Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-401_2cp3.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

ZF AUTOMOTIVE US, INC. v. LUXSHARE, LTD. 

Syllabus 

agreements.

The  ad hoc  arbitration  panel  at  issue  in  the  Fund’s  dispute  with 
Lithuania presents a harder question.  A sovereign is on one side of 
the dispute, and the option to arbitrate is contained in an international 
treaty rather than a private contract.  Yet neither Lithuania’s presence 
nor the treaty’s existence is dispositive, because Russia and Lithuania 
are free to structure investor-state dispute resolution as they see fit.
What matters is whether the two nations intended to confer govern-
mental  authority  on  an  ad hoc  panel  formed  pursuant  to  the  treaty. 
See BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina, 572 U. S. 25, 37.  The treaty 
offers  a  choice  of  four  forums  to  resolve  disputes.    The  inclusion  of 
courts as one option for dispute resolution reflects Russia and Lithua-
nia’s intent to give investors the choice of bringing their disputes be-
fore a pre-existing governmental body.  By contrast, the ad hoc arbi-
tration panel is not a pre-existing body, but one formed for the purpose 
of adjudicating investor-state disputes.  Nothing in the treaty reflects 
Russia  and  Lithuania’s  intent  that  an  ad hoc  panel  exercise  govern-
mental authority.  The ad hoc panel has authority because Lithuania 
and  the  Fund  consented  to  the  arbitration,  not  because  Russia  and 
Lithuania clothed the panel with governmental authority.  Any simi-
larities  between  the  ad hoc arbitration  panel  and  other adjudicatory 
bodies from the past are not dispositive.  For purposes of §1782, the 
inquiry is whether the features of the adjudicatory body and other ev-
idence establish the intent of the relevant nations to imbue the body
in question with governmental authority.  Pp. 11–16. 

No. 21–401, reversed; No. 21–518, 5 F. 4th 216, reversed. 

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.