Facts
The companies A. Limited and B. Pte Ltd from Singapore (the Complainants) held, through their Chinese subsidiary, exploration and mining licenses for phosphate mines as well as facilities for the production of yellow phosphorus in the People's Republic of China (the Respondent). In 2017, the Central Government of the Respondent established the Panda Bear Pilot National Park, thereby prohibiting mining in this area. The Complainants then initiated an arbitration proceeding against the Respondent, claiming violations of the 1985 Investment Protection Agreement between Singapore and China. However, the arbitral tribunal declared itself to lack jurisdiction.Considerations
The Federal Court reviews the objection to jurisdiction freely, including material preliminary issues. In doing so, it interprets the provisions of the Investment Protection Agreement in accordance with the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, without being bound by decisions of other arbitral tribunals. The Federal Court holds that the principle developed by the Federal Court, according to which a comprehensive jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal is generally to be assumed in the presence of an arbitration agreement, is not applicable in the present case of an investment…