arbitration ‘is a matter of consent, not coercion’ ” (quoting Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989)). Argentina’s analytical approach is flawed, however. As the authorities cited above command, the Court is without authority to deviate from the arbitral panel’s interpretation of the Investment Treaty in determining whether enforcement of the Award would contravene the public policy of the United States. Rather, the Court must accept as correct the arbitral panel’s construction of the Investment Treaty in determining whether the agreement violates public policy. See Banco de Seguros del Estado, 344 F.3d at 264 (quoting United Paperworkers Int’l Union, 484 U.S. at 43, 108 S.Ct. 364) (<HOLDING>); cf. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Consol.
holding that a federal court has jurisdiction over the question of whether truck was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident emphasis added recognizing that an insurance contract will generally be enforced as written unless to do so would violate the law or public policy holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added holding that the only question on a rule 35a motion is whether the sentence imposed was illegal on its face  emphasis added holding that the question to be resolved on a challenge under article v2b is whether the contract as interpreted would violate some explicit public policy emphasis added