This article aims to analyze the decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 5, 2014, in Re BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina, whereby Argentina was ordered to pay the British company BG Group the amount of United States Dollar (USD) 185.3 million in damages as a result of Argentina's decision to impose a freeze on gas prices in 2002.This article discusses the merits of such a decision focusing, in particular, on the fact that basic norms concerning general international law, and more specifically, the law of treaties, have not been taken into account in reaching a decision on a matter involving an investment arbitration provided for in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Furthermore, it seems that extremely different legal institutions, such as international contracts (in the case at hand, an international arbitration agreement) and international treaties have been merged into one thing by asserting that they stand on an equal footing, while in fact they are diametrically opposed legal instruments.