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.

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).

On October 3, 2018, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous order indicating limited provisional measures against the United States. Iran initiated the case, Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. United States), after the United States announced its decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and revoke related sanctions relief for Iran. While the ICJ found that it had prima facie jurisdiction to hear the case—contrary to the U.S. position—the provisional measures it granted fell significantly short of the relief Iran sought. The Court also hinted that it might accept a significant element of the U.S. jurisdictional objection at the merits stage of the case.