| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value | - The Respondent, relying on decisions such as S.D. Myers 7 and Pope & Talbot,8 argued that Article 1106(1) should be interpreted restrictively and that a performance requirement not falling squarely within the listed examples must not be read into the agreement.9 Canada further alleged that any prohibition of R&D Requirements would have to be declared explicitly, as in many bilateral investment tre
|
