Venezuela argued that the tribunal had wrongly accepted jurisdiction over the dispute. It claimed that Gold Reserve was not a Canadian "investor" under the BIT, and in particular that any investment in Venezuela had been made prior to the incorporation of the Canadian claimant entity, which had only assumed indirect ownership of the investment following a corporate reorganisation. Venezuela argued that this restructuring should be declared "abusive and ineffective". On the same basis, Venezuela further contended that no investment in Venezuela had been made by Gold Reserve.

Venezuela claimed that the proceedings had been conducted in breach of due process. In particular it was alleged that:

Venezuela contended that the tribunal did not comply with its mandate by allegedly basing its conclusions on "ideological considerations", deciding in equity and not according to law, and by granting Gold Reserve punitive damages.

Finally, Venezuela argued that the arbitral tribunal breached international public policy principles, in particular that of the independence and autonomy of corporate entities, by awarding compensation to Gold Reserve and not to its Venezuelan subsidiary, as allegedly required in the BIT.

The court rejected Venezuela's arguments, noting that Gold Reserve is a company incorporated under the laws of Canada and, "by that fact alone" meets the requirement of an "investor" under the BIT. Moreover, the court did not find any evidence that the incorporation of Gold Reserve in Canada was "purely fictitious" or "abusive". It was noted that although Gold Reserve has its group headquarters in the United States:

Further, the group reorganisation had occurred prior to any dispute arising between the parties, and no evidence had established that this had been abusive.

As regards the argument that Gold Reserve had made no investment, the court noted that the BIT allowed for the indirect ownership of an investment effected in Venezuela, including through an investor from a third state (BIT Articles 1(e) and 1(g) considered). As such, it was clear that Gold Reserve's investment in Venezuela fell within the intended scope of the BIT protections.

The court found that there had been no breach of due process. While it was true that Gold Reserve was granted more time during the hearing, the court noted that this was a result of the state's own decision not to cross examine any witnesses or experts for Gold Reserve. Considering the calculation of damages, it was held that the tribunal was entitled to use a method which had not been raised by the parties and that the tribunal had appropriately calculated damages, undertaking a "critical analysis of the positions submitted" so as to reflect "the reality of the prejudice". The court also noted that the parties had been given sufficient opportunity to be heard in the rectification proceedings, and that the tribunal had properly exercised its discretion to organise those proceedings as it saw appropriate.

The court held that the consent to arbitration in the BIT allowed the arbitral tribunal to review whether Venezuela had treated the protected investment with "coherence, transparency and impartiality" and, as such, to determine if the state had complied with its obligations under the BIT. The court then noted that the tribunal had decided within its mandate, including by taking into account all of the circumstances to determine if Gold Reserve was granted fair and equitable treatment. With regard to damages, it was held that the tribunal had not imposed punitive damages, but had based its award of compensation on "economic criteria".

Whilst the court accepted that this issue had been raised previously by Venezuela, in particular at the hearing, it also deemed that the state's position had not been properly developed before the arbitral tribunal, and that Venezuela was accordingly estopped from raising the point in the proceedings to set aside. In doing so, the court applied a well-established principle under French arbitral law that a party which, knowingly and without a legitimate reason, fails to object to an irregularity before the arbitral tribunal in a timely manner shall be deemed to have waived its right to avail itself of such irregularity (Article 1466 of the CPC, applicable to international arbitration by virtue of Article 1506).