Summary

...

C. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

130. The Tribunal has concluded above, on the basis of an assessment of the individual objections raised by Armenia, that the Article 18 Objections should be heard in a preliminary phase of the proceedings, whereas the other Objections should only be ruled upon in conjunction with the merits, in accordance with Article 14(4) of the Rules of Procedure.

131. An overall assessment, in light of the Tribunal's overarching duty to "provide a fair and efficient process for resolving the Parties' dispute" and to "avoid unnecessary delay and expense", reinforces this conclusion. In particular, the Tribunal considers that the legal and factual issues raised by the Article 18 Objections, which are limited in scope and distinct from both from the merits and from the issues raised by the other Objections, can be resolved fairly, promptly, and efficiently in a preliminary phase, as long as such a phase is appropriately designed to meet those objectives. In that regard, given that the Parties' joint proposal for procedural steps following the Decision on Bifurcation was submitted before the Parties were aware of the scope of the Objections to be determined in a preliminary phase,270 the Parties may wish either to confirm or to reconsider their joint proposal for such phase.

V. ORDER

132. For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal:

(a) decides to rule on Armenia's Article 18 Objections in a preliminary phase of the proceedings;

(b) suspends the proceedings on the merits, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the Rules of Procedure;

(c) decides that the remainder of Armenia's Objections shall only be ruled upon in conjunction with the merits;

(d) reserves its decision with respect to the costs of the determination of the question of bifurcation.

On behalf of the Tribunal

...