On March 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held [3] in BG Group v. Argentina that, when reviewing an arbitration award made under an investment treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina, federal courts should review with deference an arbitrators’ interpretation of a precondition to arbitration.  The case arises from a tariff dispute between Argentina and BG Group, a British firm that belonged to a consortium owning a majority interest in an Argentinian gas distributor.  After an amendment to Argentinian law affected tariff rates, BG Group sought arbitration in Washington, D.C. It invoked Article 8 of a UK-Argentina investment treaty [4], which authorizes a party to submit a dispute “to the decision of the competent tribunal of the Contracting Party in whose territory the investment was made” but permits arbitration elsewhere if such tribunal had not given its final decision after eighteen months.  The D.C. arbitrator found [5], inter alia, that it had jurisdiction in light of Argentina’s enactment of new laws that impeded BG Group’s access to the Argentinian judiciary and, on the merits, held that Argentina had denied BG Group “fair and equitable treatment,” thus awarding $185 million in damages to BG Group.  The District Court affirmed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated, reasoning inter alia that interpretation and application of Article 8 were for courts to decide de novo and thus without deference to the panel’s views.  In reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that “[i]nternational arbitrators are likely more familiar than are judges with the expectations of foreign investors and recipient nations regarding the operation of” the local litigation requirement in Article 8.  The Court also held that the arbitrators’ jurisdictional determinations were lawful.  Justice Sotomayor concurred in part, and Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Kennedy, dissented.