Source: https://www.ability4life.com/Content/2019/04-09/1235234670.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:46:38+00:00

Document:
BUCG v. Yemen, Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 53.
 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (联合国贸易和发展会议, “UNCTAD”), Expropriation: A Sequel, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II (2012) pp. 5-6.
 蚕食征收又称为“逐渐征收”或“渐进式征收”，是国际投资法上一种具有特殊时间属性的间接征收形式。UNCTAD的2003年《世界投资报告》将其描述为“涉及对一项或多项范围的被承认的所有权的渐进式累积侵蚀，直至所涉措施最终导致所有权人在该财产中的权益遭到实际否定。”UNCTAD, 2003 World Investment Report, July 2003, p. 110, http://unctad.org/en/docs/wir2003light_en.pdf.
 Saipem v. Bangladesh, Award, paras. 128-129.
 Saipem v. Bangladesh, Award, para. 170.
 Garanti Koza LLP v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/20, Award, 19 December 2016, para. 2 (“Garanti v. Turkmenistan”).
 Garanti v. Turkmenistan, Award, paras. 53-55.
 Garanti v. Turkmenistan, Award, para. 56.
 Garanti v. Turkmenistan, Award, para. 141.
 Garanti v. Turkmenistan, Award, para. 142. 原文为：“… the Arbitration Court entered an order attaching Garanti Koza’s assets ‘as a provisional measure granting TAY security for amounts owing to it by Garanti Koza’,”土库曼斯坦的仲裁法院不是仲裁庭，而是主要处理商事纠纷的民事法院。见Id., Award, fn. 212.
 Garanti v. Turkmenistan, Award, paras. 364-366.
 Desert Line v.Yemen, Award, paras. 163–190.
 Garanti Koza v. Turkmenistan, Award, paras. 347-348.
 Garanti Koza v. Turkmenistan, Award, paras. 346, 379-390.
 Walter Bau AG (in liquidation) v. the Kingdom of Thailand, UNCITRAL, Award, 1 July 2009, para. 12.39 (“Walter Bau v. Thailand”).
 Walter Bau v. Thailand, Award, paras. 12.43-12.44.
 Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Award, 26 June 2003, para. 132.
 UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II (2012) p. 80.
 Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. Republic of Tajikistan, SCC Case No. V (064/2008), Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 2 September 2009, para. 17 (“Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan”).
 Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, para. 18.
 Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, para. 21.
 Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, paras. 21-24.
 Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, paras. 218-242. 最终，仲裁庭仅认定被申请人违反了ECT第10(1)条项下的保护伞条款，驳回了申请人其他全部请求（包括征收、公平和公正待遇、拒绝司法、持续保护和保障等）。Id., pp. 97-98.
 Christoph Schreuer, Full Protection and Security, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2010, p. 353.
 Toto v. Lebanon, Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 16.
 Toto v. Lebanon, Decision on Jurisdiction, paras. 17-18; Award, paras. 207, 226.
 Toto v. Lebanon, Award, paras. 226-230.
 El Paso Energy International Company v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 April 2006, paras. 77 et seq; Pan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Exploration Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/13, Decision on Preliminary Objections, 27 July 2006, para. 108.
 Bosh v. Ukraine, Award, paras. 39, 229.
 Bosh v. Ukraine, Award, para. 241.
 Bosh v. Ukraine, Award, paras. 242-249.
 Garanti Koza v. Turkmenistan, Award, para. 271.
 Garanti Koza v. Turkmenistan, Award, para. 272.
 Garanti Koza v. Turkmenistan, Award, para. 330.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.