In the case of BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of BG Group, a British energy company. The dispute arose from an investment treaty between the UK and Argentina which provided that disputes would be resolved by arbitration. However, when economic crisis hit Argentina in 2001-02, it enacted laws that adversely affected foreign utilities companies including BG Group. In response to this action by Argentina's government, BG sought arbitration without first filing a lawsuit in Argentine courts as required under the terms of the treaty. The arbitrators awarded $185 million to BG group but on appeal to U.S District court and then Circuit court reversed this decision stating that arbitrators lacked authority because BG had not first pursued litigation in Argentine courts as per treaty requirement. However, Supreme Court overturned these decisions with a 7-2 majority ruling led by Justice Breyer who stated that procedural matters such as where and how lawsuits must be filed are fundamentally for arbitrators rather than courts to decide thus restoring original award given to BG group.

In the dissenting opinion for BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Kennedy, argued that courts should not intervene in treaty disputes unless there is clear evidence that both parties intended for them to do so. They contended that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the United Kingdom-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The dissenters believed that whether a dispute had been submitted to a local tribunal before international arbitration - as required by Article 8(2) and (3) of the BIT - was a matter for arbitrators rather than courts to decide. They also disagreed with the majority's view that this requirement was merely procedural; they saw it as substantive and integral to consent under international law principles governing treaties between nations. Thus, they concluded, if BG Group failed to comply with this prerequisite condition before seeking arbitration against Argentina under their investment treaty agreement, then no valid agreement existed between them authorizing such arbitration in violation of these conditions.