the following questions comprehensively. Facts: CMS, a U.S. corporation (domiciled in New York), signed a gas distribution agreement with the government of Argentina in 1995, participated in the Argentina privatization process, received an Argentina-owned company TGN's 29.42% shares. Within this broad framework, specific instruments were enacted to govern the privatization of the main industries. As far as the Gas sector was concerned, Law No. 24.076 of 1992, or Gas Law, established the basic rules for the transportation and distribution of gas. The legislation and regulations enacted resulted in a legal regime under which tariffs were to be calculated in dollars, conversion to pesos was to be affected at the time of billing and tariffs, would be adjusted every six months in accordance with the United States Producer Price Index (US PPI). In 2001, Argentina Suffered a serious economic crisis. The government frozen the US PPI adjustment of tariffs, resulting in no adjustments being made in accordance with this mechanism as from January 1, 2000. In late 2001 the crisis deepened. Emergency Law No. 25.561 was enacted on January 6, 2002.Thus, the currency board which had pegged the peso to the dollar was abolished. The right of licensees of public utilities to adjust tariffs according to the US PPI was terminated, as was the calculation of tariffs in dollars. CMS brought a claim against Argentina before ICSID Center. There is a Bilateral Investment Treaty between the government of United States of America and the government of Argentina. The BIT protects any kinds assets, provides the investors from one of the contracting parties the protection of fair and equitable treatment, against any direct or indirect expropriation, besides, the contracting parties give their consent to arbitration of ICSID. Assumed that the ICSID secretary registered the case. And the tribunal finally found that he has jurisdiction upon this case. He decided that the respondent should compensate CMS 1.33 million dollars. Afterward, when the award was dispatched to the dispute party, the respondent asked for an annulment. Questions: (1) The respondent objected the ICSID's jurisdiction because there is no arbitral clause in the investment contract. what is your opinion on Argentina's argument? Does ICSID have jurisdiction on this case? (2) According to the respondent, CMS is a minority share-holder of TGN, therefore CMS has no right to bring a claim before ICSID. What is your opinion on this argument? Please explain in detail. (3) The claimant said that Argentina government had fundamentally modify the regulatory framework for the investment beyond an acceptable margin of change, so Argentina had violated the fair and equitable standard. Do you agree with the claimant's argument? (4) Since the claimant's controlling of its share was not affected, the respondent argued that there is no expropriation in this case. What is your opinion about this argument? Please explain in detail. (5) The ad hoc committee found that the tribunal failed to apply the proper law, might the ad hoc committee annul the award? If the ad hoc committee found that the tribunal did not apply the law that agreed by the parties, then might the ad hoc committee annul the award? (6) What is the effect of the award according to the ICSID Convention? how can the claimant enforce the award? (7) If the Argentina government require the claimant to bring another claim in the domestic court in order to enforce the ICSID award, does this requirement lawful? Explain in detail please. (8) If the Argentina government refuse to enforce the award, what kinds of remedies the claimant might seek