This document is the Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Samuel K.B. Asante, which concurs with the majority Tribunal's dismissal of the Claimant's principal submissions but fundamentally dissents from the ultimate finding of liability against the Respondent, Sri Lanka. The Dissent posits that the majority's own antecedent findings should have logically and legally compelled a complete dismissal of the claim *in toto*.

The Dissent's central legal argument rests on the principle of *lex specialis generalibus non derogant*. Arbitrator Asante contends that Article 4 of the Sri Lanka/United Kingdom BIT, which specifically addresses losses sustained during civil disturbances, constitutes the exclusive and exhaustive legal framework for the present dispute. The majority, having correctly found no liability under the specific exceptions in Article 4(2) (e.g., destruction not caused by combat action or necessity), erred by subsequently reverting to the general standard of "full protection and security" in Article 2(2) to establish a basis for liability. This approach, in the Dissent's view, contravenes settled principles of treaty interpretation.

Furthermore, the Dissent advances a rigorous critique of the majority's interpretation of the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) and national treatment standards in Article 4(1). It argues that these provisions do not create a freestanding, substantive obligation to compensate. Instead, they establish a contingent, comparative standard that is only triggered if the host State has, in fact, provided compensation to its own nationals or to nationals of a third State in similar circumstances. Absent any evidence of such compensation by Sri Lanka, the clause provides no independent basis for relief. The Dissent characterizes the majority's use of Article 4(1) to import a general due diligence obligation from customary international law as a fundamental misapplication of the MFN concept.

Finally, the Dissent challenges the majority's finding of a breach of the due diligence standard based on Sri Lanka's failure to take certain precautionary measures prior to its military operation. Arbitrator Asante argues that applying such a standard is legally and factually untenable in the context of a major counter-insurgency operation against a formidable armed insurrection. This grave national emergency, constituting a *force majeure* situation, warrants deference to the State's sovereign discretion in matters of national security. Consequently, the Dissent concludes that under a proper construction of the BIT and the applicable rules of customary international law, which generally presume non-responsibility for insurrection-related damages, no basis for liability exists and the claim should have been dismissed entirely.