The cooling-off provisions contained in the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) arts 26(1) and (2) grant parties time to amicably settle a dispute before it escalates to adversarial proceedings. These clauses have birthed several disagreements over whether they are essential jurisdictional conditions, procedural rules or admissibility criteria—a question determining the fate of proceedings brought in violation of the period. This article analyses the relevant approaches adopted in previous ECT disputes. Evaluating the language and context of the ECT, it concludes that the appropriate interpretation is to hold the clauses akin to contractual obligations, the breach of which would give rise to damages or costs orders.