Another feature is convergence in shareholdings that have different forms according to gender: here are some special cases for the subject-verb agreement in English: with regard to the most-favoured-nation clause, the main inconsistency is whether the most-favoured-nation obligation allows the investor to import a more favourable provision of another investment agreement – procedurally and/or materially. Some of the differences in arbitration tribunal decisions and arbitrations in this area are known. As Douglas has found, some decisions and arbitral awards favour the most-favoured-nation clause, which seeks to modify or repeal the conditions of access to ISDS and extend the tribunal`s jurisdiction (such as Maffezini v. Spain, Siemens v. argentina and RosInvestCo UK v Russian Federation), while others do not allow the use of the most-favoured-nation clause (e.g. B Salini against Jordan, Plama against Bulgaria and ICS against Argentine Republic). Meanwhile, in most cases, most-favoured-nation clauses have been interpreted in such a way as to allow the investor to import favourable substantive standards from contracts with third countries (such as White Industries vs. India). But as Batifort and Heath have recently found, some have also closed this possibility. (as Içkale v.

Turkmenistan), which raises the question of whether the importation of contractual terms from third parties is appropriate. In Hungarian, verbs are polypersonal, which means that they correspond to more than one of the arguments of the verb: not only with its subject, but also with its (precise) object. There is a distinction between the case where there is a particular object and the case where the object is indeterminate or where there is no object at all. (Adverbians have no influence on the form of the verb.) Examples: Szeretek (I like someone or something unspecified), more (I love him, she, she or she, in particular), szeretlek (I love you); szeret (he loves me, us, you, someone or something indeterminate), szereti (he loves him, him or her specifically). Of course, names or pronouns can specify the exact object. In short, there is a correspondence between a verb and the person and the number of its subject and the specificity of its object (which often relates more or less precisely to the person). Vassals also gained greater consistency at this time, and their rules began to crystallize. Case agreement is not an essential feature of English (only personnel pronouns and pronouns that have casus marking). The agreement between these pronouns can sometimes be observed: hit the mixture on the consistency of the sweet butter. For example, in Standard English, we can say that I am or that he is, but not “I am” or “he is”. This is because the grammar of language requires that the verb and its subject correspond personally.

The pronouns I and him are the first or third person respectively, just as the verb forms are and are. The verb must be chosen in such a way as to have the same person as the subject, unlike the fictitious agreement based on meaning. [2] [3] For example, in American English, the un expression is treated as a singular for the purposes of the agreement, although it is formally plural. According to WGIII, the most egregious cases of unjustified inconsistency are cases “where the same contractual investment norm or rule of international law of use has been interpreted differently in the absence of a justified reason for the distinction” (UN Doc No. A/CN.9/935 (14 May 2018), para. . . .