Noting the need to revise the Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952, and the Maternity Protection Recommendation, 1952, in order to further promote equality of all women in the workforce and the health and safety of the mother and child, and in order to recognize the diversity in economic and social development of Members, as well as the diversity of enterprises, and the development of the protection of maternity in national law and practice, and

The case was referred to the Court in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No.11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention“)1 by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) on 30 October 1999 (Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 and former Articles 47 and 48 of the Convention).

This dispute arises out of the activities of the Claimant, Metalclad Corporation(hereinafter “Metalclad“), in the Mexican Municipality of Guadalcazar (hereinafter “Guadalcazar“),located in the Mexican State of San Luis Potosi (hereinafter “SLP“).Metalclad alleges that Respondent, the United Mexican States (hereinafter “Mexico“), through its local governments of SLP and Guadalcazar, interfered with its development and operation of a hazardous waste landfill. Metalclad claims that this interference is a violation of the Chapter Eleven investment provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter “NAFTA“). In particular, Metalclad alleges violations of (i) NAFTA, Article 1105, which required each Party to NAFTA to “ accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment in accordance with international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security“ and (ii) NAFTA, Article 1110, which provides that “no Party to NAFTA may directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate an investment of an investor of another Party in its territory or take a measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation of such an investment ('expropriation’), except: (a) for a public purpose; (b) on a non-discriminatory basis;(c) in accordance with due process of law and Article 1105(1); and (d) on payment of compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2 through 6”.Mexico denies these allegations.

On September 29, 1998, Waste Management, Inc., formerly known as USA Waste Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Waste Management or the Claimant), acting on its own behalf and on behalf of ACAVERDE S.A. de C.V. (hereinafter referred to as Acaverde), requested from the Secretary-General of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (Icsid), approval of access to the Additional Facility for the Administration of Proceedings by the Secretariat of ICSID (hereinafter referred to as Additional Facility) and, jointly, filed a notice for the institution of arbitration proceedings against the Government of the United Mexican States (hereinafter referred to as the Government of Mexico), in accordance with Article 2 of the Additional Facility Arbitration Rules (Schedule C).

Chan Mei Yee (“Ms Chan“) is a resident of Mainland China. She was born there in 1969. She married her husband, Mr Lee Man Shing, in the Mainland in 1992. Mr Lee is a Hong Kong permanent resident. In December 1992, Ms Chan gave birth to a daughter Lee Ka Po (“the child“) during her visit to Hong Kong. The child has Hong Kong permanent resident status.