This case note analyzes the arbitral tribunal’s assessment in Gabriel Resources v. Romania, focusing on the investors’ “second alternative claim” that Romania’s nomination and subsequent inscription of the Roșia Montană Mining Landscape on the World Heritage List constituted a breach of its obligations under the applicable bilateral investment treaties. It examines whether the tribunal’s reasoning aligns with prior investment case law involving the World Heritage Convention, and it reflects on certain aspects of the award that may warrant closer scrutiny, particularly in light of the potential normative tensions between the protection of host states’ heritage and the rights of foreign investors.
