The of structural and geometric multifaceted nature, started

The dispute was brought to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an international arbitration institution that was established in 1965 for legal dispute resolutions between international investors. The Investor, which is the ADF Group Inc. (ADF Group), is incorporated under the laws of Canada. The Investment, ADF International Inc., (ADF International) is a corporation that is organised under the laws of Florida. ADF International is a completely owned subsidiary of ADF Group. The ADF Group Inc., a Corporation recognized for its engineering expertise, its project management, its imperative creation limit and its skill in the manufacture of steel superstructures with a high level of structural and geometric multifaceted nature, started a case against the Government of United States of America under provisions of Investment Chapter of NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement is an agreement that is signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, which creates a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The case was conducted under the ICSID Additional Facility Arbitration Rules and it concerned a dispute arising from the Springfield Interchange Highway construction project in Virginia. ADF was a part of it because it was a subcontractor to a United States company that had entered into a contract with the Department of Transportation of Virginia for that project. ADF’s case was that the purported “Buy America requirements” imposed by United States government as condition for its subsidizing of ventures like Springfield Interchange Project, which broke certain obligations of the Government under the Investment Chapter of the NAFTA. When the dispute between the parties had started, it was 6 months into it since the events arose to the Investor’s claim that passed. This allowed the Investor to submit its Notice of Arbitration, which was pursuant to, and under the authority of, Section B of Chapter 11 of NAFTA (Article 1120(1)) and the ICSID-AFR. The parties had already attempted to settle but to no avail. The Investor claimed that the Party’s measures do breach the United States’ obligations under Section A of Chapter 11 of NAFTA. They also claimed that the Investor is entitled to invoke this Section against the Party in arbitration proceedings, which were set out in Section B of Chapter 11 of NAFTA, in NAFTA’s own behalf in Article 1116 and on behalf of the Investment in Article 1117. In Article 1122(2)(a) of NAFTA it provides that the ICSID-APR would be satisfied by the consent that is provided by paragraph 1 of Article 1122 and the submission by a disputing investor of a claim to arbitration. When submitting the Notice of Arbitration, the Investor seeked confirmation under Article 3(l)(c) of the ICSID-AFR and Article 4 of the Administrative ICSID-AFR ¬†of the approval of the Secretary General. The Investor assumed until further notice that the approval of the Secretary General, for the purposes of the Notice of Arbitration, had already been impliedly given under Article 4(5) of the Administrative ICSID-AFR.