Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

Concluded original arbitration proceedings:

About

Open this in NEW TAB
ISDS data set in excel format (as of 31 December 2023)

ISDS Navigator

The UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator – the ISDS Navigator – is maintained by UNCTAD’s IIA Section. The ISDS Navigator contains information about known international arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant to international investment agreements (IIAs). Such arbitrations are also referred to as treaty-based investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases.

Please cite as: UNCTAD, Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator, available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement

UNCTAD's Work Programme on International Investment Agreements (IIAs) actively assists policymakers, government officials and other IIA stakeholders to reform IIAs with a view to making them more conducive to sustainable development and inclusive growth.

International investment rulemaking is taking place at the bilateral, regional, interregional and multilateral levels. It requires policymakers, negotiators, civil society and other stakeholders to be well informed about foreign direct investment, international investment agreements (IIAs) and their impact on sustainable development.

Main goals of UNCTAD’s Work Programme on IIAs

• Reform the international investment agreements (IIAs) regime to enhance its sustainable development dimension,

• Provide comprehensive analysis on key issues arising from the complexity of the international investment regime,

• Develop a wide range of tools to support the formulation of more balanced international investment policies.

The three pillars of activities

• Research and policy analysis: monitoring trends, identifying key emerging issues and providing cutting-edge knowledge on IIAs from a sustainable development perspective,

• Technical assistance: delivering trainings, seminars and workshops; conducting IIA and model BIT reviews; offering ad-hoc advice to strengthen the capacity of beneficiaries in handling the complexities of the IIA regime,

• Intergovernmental consensus-building: exchanging and sharing best practices and experience with the view to fostering global investment governance.

For further information, please contact us via the online contact form.
Methodology

Open this in NEW TAB

Disclaimer

The ISDS Navigator includes information about publicly known IIA-based international investor-State arbitration proceedings. As some proceedings (or certain aspects of proceedings) remain confidential, the information contained in the Navigator cannot be deemed exhaustive.

While every effort is made to keep the information up to date and complete, the material is provided without any guarantees or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness. UNCTAD assumes no responsibility for eventual errors or omissions in these data.

We welcome any additional information or clarifications on specific cases as well as suggestions to improve the Navigator. Please contact us using the online contact form.

Cases included in the Navigator

• an international arbitration between an investor and a State;

• fully or partially based on an IIA, such as a bilateral investment treaty or the investment chapter of a free trade agreement (not included are investor-State disputes that are solely based on contracts or on domestic investment legislation);

• submitted to arbitration through a notice of arbitration or a request for arbitration, and upon registration of such request if applicable (not included are cases where a disputing party has only notified the other party of the existence of a dispute or signalled its intention to submit a claim, but has not yet commenced the arbitration).

Sources of information and frequency of updating

The information included in the Navigator is collected from publicly available sources. Primary sources (i.e. official documents relating to the case and information provided by the administering institutions) are the main and preferred source of information. Secondary sources, such as specialized reporting services and other sources deemed reliable, are used to supplement primary sources and/or obtain case information otherwise unavailable.
The Navigator is updated on a regular, typically biannual, basis. The date of the last update is displayed on the Navigator’s home page.

Methodological notes for the recording of data

Full case name
The full case name is recorded as it appears in the official case documents and as it is registered at the administering institution if applicable (listing the claimants in alphabetical order). If there are more than five claimants in the case, the names of all claimants can be replaced by the name of the first three claimants followed by the words “and others”.

Short case name
The short case name is ascribed by UNCTAD. Typically it is the first word of a corporate claimant’s name, an abbreviation of the corporate claimant’s name, or the last name of a natural-person claimant “v.” the short version of the respondent State’s name.

If the Navigator includes more than one case with the exact same name, then “(I)” is added to the case name of the earlier case, and a “(II)”, “(III)”, etc. is added to the name of each subsequent case.

Year of initiation
This is the year in which the notice of arbitration / request for arbitration was submitted by the claimant. For arbitrations brought under the ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules or ICSID Additional Facilities (AF) Rules, the year in which the claim was registered by ICSID is used.

Applicable IIA
This is the IIA(s) pursuant to which the claimant initiated the arbitral proceedings.

Arbitral rules
These are the arbitral rules in accordance with which the proceedings are conducted. Proceedings that are not subject to any existing set of arbitral rules, i.e. where the arbitral tribunal determines procedural rules, are marked “None (ad hoc)”.

Administering institution
This is the institution that provides administrative support for the arbitral proceedings. When the proceedings are subject to arbitral rules of a certain arbitral institution (e.g. SCC or ICC), the relevant institution administers that case. In ad hoc arbitrations or those that are subject to non-institutional arbitral rules (e.g. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), the parties may request any arbitral institution to administer their case (e.g. PCA). Proceedings may also be conducted without being administered by any institution.

Common abbreviations for administering institutions:

• CRCICA: Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
• ICC: International Chamber of Commerce (International Court of Arbitration)
• ICSID: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
• LCIA: London Court of International Arbitration
• MCCI: Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry
• PCA: Permanent Court of Arbitration
• SCC: Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (Arbitration Institute)

Details of investment and summary of the dispute
The details of investment are presented as argued by the claimant, unless otherwise expressly identified by an arbitral tribunal in its decisions or awards.

The summary of the dispute describes in very general terms the conduct allegedly in breach of IIA obligations as argued by the claimant (non-exhaustive).

Economic sector and subsector
This refers to the economic sector to which the investment at issue allegedly belongs. The structure of economic activities follows the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4 (UN ISIC Rev.4).

Status/Outcome of original proceedings
This refers to the current status of the original arbitration proceedings.

• Decided in favour of State: the tribunal dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction or found that the respondent State has not committed any breach of the applicable IIA.

• Decided in favour of investor: the tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA and awarded monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.

• Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded): the arbitral tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA but did not award monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.

• Settled: the disputing parties settled the case and the arbitral proceedings were discontinued for that reason.

• Discontinued: the arbitration was discontinued for any reason other than due to a (known) settlement. This includes discontinuance as a result of non-payment of arbitration fees, in order to pursue litigation in another forum, or for any other reason (including for unknown reasons).

• Pending: the arbitration proceedings are pending. A case remains pending if any of the following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, liability (merits), compensation. The case remains pending, for instance, if a State is found to have breached one or more IIA obligations (liability) but no award on damages has been issued yet.

Additional notes:

• The Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of "mixed" disputes. In treaty-based cases that are simultaneously contract-based or based on national investment law ("mixed" disputes), a case is deemed concluded (for purposes of the Navigator) if the tribunal dismissed the case on jurisdiction or finds no breach of the IIA, even if it proceeds to adjudicate the contract- or statutory-based claims.

• Cases in which a final award has been rendered but which are later subject to follow-on (post-award) proceedings (e.g. ICSID annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review), are marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).

Arbitral decisions rendered
These are decisions rendered by an arbitral tribunal. Included are those decisions that concern the substance of the case and affect the final outcome. In particular, these include decisions (awards) on jurisdictional issues, liability (merits) and damages, including arbitrators’ individual opinions where these were issued. Discontinuance orders and settlement agreements are also recorded if such information is available.

Not included are any other (supplementary) arbitral decisions, e.g. concerning provisional measures or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators. Similarly, procedural orders issued by arbitral tribunals are not included. To access a full list of documentation available with respect to a case, users are invited to use (i) the link to the case page on http://italaw.com, and/or (ii) links to the websites of governments and/or arbitral institutions provided in the “Additional information” section.

Amounts claimed and awarded
Amount claimed refers to the amount of monetary compensation claimed by the investor, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

Amount awarded refers to the amount of monetary compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal to the claimant, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

For proceedings that end in a settlement, the amount of compensation that the State agreed to pay to the claimant under the terms of settlement (if known) is recorded in this section.

Amounts are recorded in the currency used by the claimant/tribunal. The list of currencies in the Navigator follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4217 code list.

To enable comparisons between cases, all amounts are also converted to US dollars. For the purposes of such conversion, the OANDA Historical Currency Converter is being used; the date of conversion is the date of the document or other source from which the information was obtained (e.g. the date in which the request for arbitration containing this amount was submitted or the date of the final award).

Whenever possible, information about amounts claimed and awarded is obtained from primary sources such as the arbitration documents. Otherwise, it is derived from other publicly available sources that are deemed reliable. In some cases, the approximate amount may be recorded to give a broad indication of the dispute’s magnitude. As a general rule, a rounded figure (to the nearest hundred thousand) of the amount claimed or awarded is provided.

If the claimant provides more than one valuation of damages claimed, the highest of these amounts is recorded.

IIA breaches alleged and found
Information about breaches alleged is primarily derived from the claimant’s request of arbitration, claimant’s memorials and/or arbitral decisions. When the relevant case documentation is not publicly available, information about breaches alleged may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Information about breaches found is primarily derived from the arbitral decisions. When the relevant decision is not publicly available, information about breaches found may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Claims concerning expropriation are classified as “direct” or “indirect” according to the characterisation made by the claimant and/or the tribunal. Whenever a claimant or the tribunal refer to “expropriation”, without distinguishing between “direct” or “indirect”, such distinction is made on the basis of the factual background of the case and the context of the claimant’s claims and tribunal’s findings.

Composition of tribunal
These are individuals who serve as members of the arbitral tribunal adjudicating the dispute (arbitrators).

The disputing party (i.e. claimant or respondent) that appointed a particular arbitrator is also recorded insofar as information is available. Instances where the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, and the latter was appointed by an “appointing authority”, are not recorded separately (i.e. both types of appointment are recorded under “Appointed by / designated to Respondent” without further distinction).

In case an arbitrator has been replaced by another individual (e.g. as a result of resignation, disqualification or passing away), the names of both the previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded.

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings
Follow-on (post-award) proceedings include three types of legal proceedings:

• ICSID annulment proceedings;

• Judicial review by national courts (set-aside proceedings); and

• ICSID resubmission proceedings.

Initiation of a follow-on proceeding by either disputing party does not affect the field “Case Status/Outcome” of the original proceeding, until the follow-on proceeding is completed. For example, in a case where a final award has been rendered but it is later subject to a follow-on proceeding (e.g. ICSID annulment proceeding), the status of the case is marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).

Decisions, judgments and/or awards rendered in the course of follow-on (post-award) proceedings, as well as any individual opinions appended to them, are recorded.

The composition of the ICSID ad hoc committees that adjudicate requests for annulment under the ICSID Convention is recorded.

Link to Italaw’s case page
The Italaw.com portal offers a wide collection of case documentation for many investor-State disputes. It makes available not only the main arbitral decisions, but also procedural orders, parties’ submissions, expert opinions and other types of documents.

A link to the relevant case page at http://italaw.com is provided where such page is available, so that users could browse all documents relating to the case at hand.

Additional information
This section provides links to sources of information used for gathering data for the case at hand or otherwise relevant to that case. These may include links to websites of arbitral/administering institutions, governments, international organisations, specialised reporting services (including subscription-based), media and other resources.

Home >
Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

Advanced Search

Case name and number

Results: 316

Year

Results: 0

Countries

Results: 150

Economic sector and subsector

Results: 0

Applicable IIA

Results: 0

Arbitral rules and administering institution

Results: 0

Arbitrators and annulment committee members

Results: 0

Amount of compensation (USD or USD equivalent)

Results: 0

Breaches of IIA provisions alleged and found

Results: 0

Follow-on proceedings

Results: 0

Case name

Case number

Clear selection

NO.	Year of initiation	Short case name	Full case name	Applicable IIA	Arbitral rules	Administering institution	Summary	Details of investment	Outcome of original proceedings	Respondent State	Home State of investor	Economic sector	Economic subsector	Arbitrators	Amount claimed	Amount awarded (or settled for)	Breaches alleged	Breaches found	Decisions	Individual opinions	Follow-on proceeding type	Follow-on proceeding status	Follow-on decisions	Follow-on individual opinions	ICSID annulment committee members
1	2021	Energía y Renovación v. Guatemala	Energía y Renovación Holding, S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala (ICSID Case No. ARB/21/56)	Central America - Panama FTA (2002)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Investments in two hydroelectric power plant projects (“Central Pojom II" and "Central San Andrés") in the municipality of San Mateo Ixtatán, and a transmission line (“Innovación Nor Occidente”). Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to protect the claimant’s hydropower projects from local community protests, violent attacks and social unrest.	Investments in two hydroelectric power plant projects (“Central Pojom II" and "Central San Andrés") in the municipality of San Mateo Ixtatán, and a transmission line (“Innovación Nor Occidente”).	Decided in favour of investor	Guatemala	Panama	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Fernández Arroyo, D. P. - President Tawil, G. S. - Claimant Vinuesa, R. E. - Respondent	147.80 mln USD	64.50 mln USD	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar National treatment Most-favoured nation treatment	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar	Decision on Bifurcation dated 2 December 2022 (Spanish) Award dated 31 March 2025 (Spanish) Decision on the Rectification of the Award dated 27 June 2025	Dissenting Opinion of Raúl Emilio Vinuesa Declarations of Diego Fernández Arroyo and Guido Santiago Tawil Declarations of Diego Fernández Arroyo and Guido Santiago Tawil Declaration of Raúl Emilio Vinuesa	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Arrighi Bustamante, P. - President Tanzi, A. M. - Member Herrera-Bernal, X. - Member
2	2021	Interconexión v. Chile	Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P. v. Republic of Chile (ICSID Case No. ARB/21/27)	Chile - Colombia FTA (2006)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Shareholding in ISA Inversiones Chile SpA and ISA Interchile S.A., holding a concession for the construction and operation of the “Nueva Línea Cardones-Polpaico” electricity transmission project. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s decision to impose fines on ISA Interchile, the claimant’s local subsidiary, for alleged delays in the construction of the Cardones-Polpaico electricity transmission project.	Shareholding in ISA Inversiones Chile SpA and ISA Interchile S.A., holding a concession for the construction and operation of the “Nueva Línea Cardones-Polpaico” electricity transmission project.	Decided in favour of investor	Chile	Colombia	Tertiary: F - Construction Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	42 - Civil engineering 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	González García, L. - Claimant Pinsolle, P. - Respondent Núñez-Lagos, C. - President	221.40 mln USD	16.10 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 13 December 2024 (Spanish) Rectification of the Award dated 11 March 2025 (Spanish)	Partial Dissent by Luis González García (Spanish)	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Tanzi, A. M. - President Jiménez Figueres, D. - Member Moreno Rodríguez, J. A. - Member
3	2020	Garsų Pasaulis v. Kyrgyzstan	Garsų Pasaulis UAB v. Kyrgyz Republic (PCA Case No. 2020-59)	Kyrgyzstan - Lithuania BIT (2008)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Investments in a security printing business. Summary: Claims arising out of State authorities’ decision to halt the signature of a contract to produce biometric passports for Kyrgyz citizens that the claimant had won through a public tender.	Investments in a security printing business.	Decided in favour of investor	Kyrgyzstan	Lithuania	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	18 - Printing and reproduction of recorded media	Laird, I. A. - Claimant Vilkova, N. - Respondent Hobér, K. - President	16.70 mln EUR (18.10 mln USD)	1.30 mln EUR (1.40 mln USD)	Direct expropriation Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 8 April 2024	None	Judicial review by national courts	Pending (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None	None
4	2020	GreenX Metals (formerly Prairie) v. Poland (I)	GreenX Metals Limited (formerly Prairie Mining Limited) v. Republic of Poland (I) (PCA Case No. 2020-52)	Australia - Poland BIT (1991)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Ownership of the Jan Karski and Debiensko coal mines, holding exploration and mining concessions. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged actions to block the claimant’s coking coal projects at the Jan Karski and Debiensko mines.	Ownership of the Jan Karski and Debiensko coal mines, holding exploration and mining concessions.	Decided in favour of investor	Poland	Australia	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	5 - Mining of coal and lignite	Sachs, K. - President Rees, P. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent	806.00 mln GBP (1140.60 mln USD)	252.00 mln GBP (330.70 mln USD)	Data not available	Data not available	Award dated 7 October 2024	None	Judicial review by national courts	Pending (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None	None
5	2020	GreenX Metals (formerly Prairie) v. Poland (II)	GreenX Metals Limited (formerly Prairie Mining Limited) v. Republic of Poland (PCA Case No. 2021-06)	The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Ownership of the Jan Karski and Debiensko coal mines, holding exploration and mining concessions. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged actions to block the claimant’s coking coal projects at the Jan Karski and Debiensko mines.	Ownership of the Jan Karski and Debiensko coal mines, holding exploration and mining concessions.	Decided in favour of investor	Poland	Australia United Kingdom	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	5 - Mining of coal and lignite	Sachs, K. - President Rees, P. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent	806.00 mln GBP (1140.60 mln USD)	183.00 mln GBP (240.10 mln USD)	Data not available	Data not available	Award dated 7 October 2024	None	Judicial review by national courts	Pending (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None	None
6	2020	Lupaka v. Peru	Lupaka Gold Corp. v. Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/46)	Canada - Peru FTA (2008)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Ownership (100% interest) of Invicta Mining Corporation S.A.C., a local subsidiary holding six mining concessions for a gold mining project in the Huaura Province, northeast of the city of Lima. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s actions and omissions, through the local community of Parán, related to an alleged illegal blockade and invasion of the claimant’s “Invicta Gold Development Project“, which ultimately resulted in the loss of the mining project.	Ownership (100% interest) of Invicta Mining Corporation S.A.C., a local subsidiary holding six mining concessions for a gold mining project in the Huaura Province, northeast of the city of Lima.	Decided in favour of investor	Peru	Canada	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	7 - Mining of metal ores	Crook, J. R. - President Schiller, J. D. - Claimant (replaced) Griffith, G. - Respondent Garibaldi, O. M. - Claimant	40.40 mln USD	40.40 mln USD	Direct expropriation Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar Most-favoured nation treatment	Direct expropriation Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar	Award dated 30 June 2025	None	None	None	None	None	None
7	2020	Mitsui v. Spain	Mitsui & Co., Ltd. v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/47)	The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Investments in the construction and operation of a solar power plant at Palma del Río in the Córdoba region, via joint venture enterprise Guzmán Energía. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector.	Investments in the construction and operation of a solar power plant at Palma del Río in the Córdoba region, via joint venture enterprise Guzmán Energía.	Decided in favour of investor	Spain	Japan	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Affaki, G. - President Gotanda, J. Y. - Claimant Blair, W. - Respondent	199.00 mln EUR (213.00 mln USD)	31.50 mln EUR (33.70 mln USD)	Data not available	Data not available	Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Principles of Quantum dated 31 May 2024 Award dated 6 March 2025 Decision on the rectification of the award dated 6 August 2025	Partial Dissenting Opinion by William Blair	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	None
8	2020	Nachingwea and others v. Tanzania	Nachingwea U.K. Limited, Ntaka Nickel Holdings Limited and Nachingwea Nickel Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/38)	United Republic of Tanzania - United Kingdom BIT (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Rights under mining licences for the Ntaka Hill Nickel Project located in the Nachingwea region of south-eastern Tanzania. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s cancellation of retention licences held by the claimants for the Ntaka Hill Nickel Project and the subsequent public tender for the joint development of areas covered by these licences without offering compensation to the claimants.	Rights under mining licences for the Ntaka Hill Nickel Project located in the Nachingwea region of south-eastern Tanzania.	Decided in favour of investor	Tanzania, United Republic of	United Kingdom	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	7 - Mining of metal ores	Bull, C. - President Bishop, D. - Claimant Monageng, S. M. - Respondent	76.70 mln USD	76.70 mln USD	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Indirect expropriation	Award dated 14 July 2023	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Discontinued (ICSID annulment proceedings)	Decision on Preliminary Objections pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) dated 2 February 2024 (ICSID annulment proceedings) Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding dated 17 October 2025 (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	Knieper, R. - President Cooper-Rousseau, B. - Member Muigai, G. - Member
9	2020	South32 v. Colombia	South32 SA Investments Limited v. Republic of Colombia (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/9)	Colombia - United Kingdom BIT (2010)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Shareholding of 99.9 per cent in Cerro Matoso S.A., a local company operating an integrated nickel laterite mine and smelter complex located in the Cordoba area of northern Colombia. Summary: Claims arising out of the national comptroller office’s assessment of royalties for the exploitation of nickel that are allegedly owed to the State by the claimant’s local subsidiary Cerro Matoso.	Shareholding of 99.9 per cent in Cerro Matoso S.A., a local company operating an integrated nickel laterite mine and smelter complex located in the Cordoba area of northern Colombia.	Decided in favour of investor	Colombia	United Kingdom	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying Secondary: C - Manufacturing	7 - Mining of metal ores 24 - Manufacture of basic metals	Garibaldi, O. M. - Claimant (replaced) Tawil, G. S. - Claimant Jana Linetzky, A. - Respondent Villanúa Gómez, D. - President	90.00 mln USD	4.50 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 21 June 2024 (English) Award dated 21 June 2024 (Spanish) Decision on the Rectification of the Award dated 29 January 2025 (English) Decision on the Rectification of the Award dated 29 January 2025 (Spanish)	Dissenting Opinion by Andrés Jana (English) Dissenting Opinion by Andrés Jana (Spanish)	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Abdel Wahab, M. S. - President González Arrocha, K. - Member Giorgetti, C. - Member
10	2020	Telcell v. Georgia	Telcell Wireless, LLC and International Telcell Cellular, LLC v. Georgia (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/5)	Georgia - United States BIT (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Equity ownership in MagtiCom Ltd., a local telecommunications company. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged politically-motivated interference by the Government in the management of MagtiCom, including through the arrest of MagtiCom’s founder on the basis of tax evasion charges and a forced restructuring of the company to the alleged benefit of the State.	Equity ownership in MagtiCom Ltd., a local telecommunications company.	Decided in favour of investor	Georgia	United States of America	Tertiary: J - Information and communication	61 - Telecommunications	Binnie, I. - President Pryles, M. C. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent	154.00 mln USD	Data not available	Data not available	Data not available	Award dated 15 April 2024	Dissenting Opinion by Brigitte Stern	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	van Haersolte-Van Hof, J. J. - President Akande, D. - Member Shin, H.-T. - Member
11	2020	United Agencies v. Algeria (I)	United Agencies Limited SA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/1)	Algeria - Switzerland BIT (2004)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Summary:		Decided in favour of investor	Algeria	Switzerland	Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities	64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding	Hanotiau, B. - President Patocchi, P. M. - Claimant Bencheneb, A. - Respondent	Data not available	36.00 mln USD	Transfer of funds	Transfer of funds	Final Award dated 25 July 2022 (French)	Dissenting Opinion by Ali Bencheneb	None	None	None	None	None
12	2019	Azucarera del Guadalfeo and Martín v. Dominican Republic	Azucarera del Guadalfeo S.A. and Joaquín Francisco Martín Montero v. Dominican Republic (PCA Case No. 2020-01)	Dominican Republic - Spain BIT (1995)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Ownership of local subsidiary Azucarera Porvenir, S. R. L., which operated the Porvenir sugar mill in San Pedro de Macorís. Summary: Claims arising out of the State Sugar Council’s alleged illegal take-over of sugar production facilities operated by the claimants’ local subsidiary based on a lease agreement with the State Sugar Council.	Ownership of local subsidiary Azucarera Porvenir, S. R. L., which operated the Porvenir sugar mill in San Pedro de Macorís.	Decided in favour of investor	Dominican Republic	Spain	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	10 - Manufacture of food products	Júdice, J. M. - President Hierro, A. - Claimant Malintoppi, L. - Respondent	46.80 mln USD	Data not available	Data not available	Data not available	Award dated 31 October 2022 Rectification Decision dated 16 January 2023	None	None	None	None	None	None
13	2019	Canepa v. Spain	Canepa Green Energy Opportunities I, S.á r.l. and Canepa Green Energy Opportunities II, S.á r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/4)	The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Investment in a renewable energy generation enterprise. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewable energy sector.	Investment in a renewable energy generation enterprise.	Decided in favour of investor	Spain	Luxembourg	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Murphy, S. D. - President Rees, P. - Claimant González Napolitano, S. - Respondent	Data not available	Data not available	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Decision on jurisdiction, admissibility, liability and general directions with respect to quantum dated 30 October 2023 Award dated 31 May 2024	Partial Dissenting Opinion by Silvina S. González Napolitano	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Abdel Wahab, M. S. - President Lévesque, C. - Member Levine, J. - Member
14	2019	Diamante Trading and others v. Venezuela	Diamante Trading Investments Ltd. and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (PCA Case No. 2019-49)	Barbados - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1994) Spain - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1995)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Interests in Herrera, C.A. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged expropriatory measures related to the claimants’ investments in the food sector.	Interests in Herrera, C.A.	Decided in favour of investor	Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of	Barbados Spain	Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles	46 - Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles	Fernández Arroyo, D. P. - President Martínez de Hoz, J. A. - Claimant Ferrari, F. - Respondent	295.00 mln USD	97.60 mln USD	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Indirect expropriation	Final Award dated 27 May 2025	None	None	None	None	None	None
15	2019	Glencore and others v. Colombia (II)	Glencore International A.G., C. I. Prodeco S.A., and Sociedad Portuaria Puerto Nuevo S.A. v. Republic of Colombia (II) (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/22)	Colombia - Switzerland BIT (2006)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Concession contract for Puerto Nuevo, a public services port for the export of coal in the municipality of Ciénaga, northern Colombia. Summary: Claims arising out of the building and maintenance of an access channel related to Puerto Nuevo, a port constructed and operated by the claimants under a 30-year concession agreement signed with Colombia’s national infrastructure agency in 2011.	Concession contract for Puerto Nuevo, a public services port for the export of coal in the municipality of Ciénaga, northern Colombia.	Decided in favour of investor	Colombia	Switzerland	Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage	52 - Warehousing and support activities for transportation	Cremades, B. M. - President Price, D. M. - Claimant von Wobeser, C. - Respondent	40.30 mln USD	9.40 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Most-favoured nation treatment Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Decision on the Respondent’s preliminary objections pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) dated 8 March 2021 Award dated 19 April 2024 (English) Award dated 19 April 2024 (Spanish)	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Landau, T. - President De Quadros, F. - Member Mori Arellano, M. - Member
16	2019	Kenon and IC Power v. Peru	Kenon Holdings Ltd and IC Power Ltd v. Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/19)	Peru - Singapore FTA (2008)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Shareholding in Kallpa Generación S.A. and Samay I S.A., local electric energy companies. Summary: Claims arising out of a regulatory agency’s withdrawal of an exclusive right the local subsidiary Kallpa had been awarded through a bid procedure in 2016 to provide a service related to the frequency of the power generation system, as well as changes to the calculation of transmission line tolls for energy generators, allegedly benefitting state-owned electricity companies to the claimants’ detriment.	Shareholding in Kallpa Generación S.A. and Samay I S.A., local electric energy companies.	Decided in favour of investor	Peru	Singapore	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Radicati di Brozolo, L. - President Haigh, D. - Claimant Siqueiros, E. - Respondent	195.30 mln USD	110.70 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 3 October 2023 (English) Award dated 3 October 2023 (Spanish) Decision on the Requests for Rectification and Clarification dated 3 May 2024	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Júdice, J. M. - President Núñez-Lagos, C. - Member Radi, Y. - Member
17	2019	LARAH v. Uruguay	Latin American Regional Aviation Holding S. de R.L. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/16)	Panama - Uruguay BIT (1998)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Indirect shareholding of 75% in Pluna Líneas Aéreas Uruguayas S.A. (“Pluna”) via Leadgate Investment Corp., a subsidiary of the claimant. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s decision to nationalize and subsequently liquidate the airline Pluna in which Leadgate, the claimant’s private equity fund, held a majority stake.	Indirect shareholding of 75% in Pluna Líneas Aéreas Uruguayas S.A. (“Pluna”) via Leadgate Investment Corp., a subsidiary of the claimant.	Decided in favour of investor	Uruguay	Panama	Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage	51 - Air transport	Mourre, A. - President Zuleta, E. - Claimant Siqueiros, E. - Respondent	485.00 mln USD	30.00 mln USD	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 13 February 2024 (Spanish)	None	None	None	None	None	None
18	2019	Mercuria v. Poland (II)	Mercuria Energy Group Limited v. The Republic of Poland (II) (SCC Case No. 2019/126)	The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	SCC	SCC	Investment: Ownership of local subsidiary J&S Energy S.A. (“JSE”), a company importing and trading in petrochemicals. Summary: Claims arising out of a government agency’s imposition of a financial penalty on the claimant’s subsidiary JSE, which Polish administrative courts later overturned, and the government agency’s subsequent failure to repay accrued interest to the claimant upon the reimbursement of the penalty.	Ownership of local subsidiary J&S Energy S.A. (“JSE”), a company importing and trading in petrochemicals.	Decided in favour of investor	Poland	Cyprus	Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles	46 - Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles	Sachs, K. - President Blanch, J. - Claimant Boisson de Chazournes, L. - Respondent	152.90 mln PLN (34.60 mln USD)	145.10 mln PLN (32.90 mln USD)	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Other	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Other	Final Award dated 29 December 2022	None	Judicial review by national courts	Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts)	Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal dated 12 December 2024 (Swedish) (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None
19	2019	Odyssey v. Mexico	Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/1)	NAFTA (1992)	UNCITRAL	ICSID	Investment: Seabed mining concession for a phosphate deposit in the Pacific Ocean held by Exploraciones Oceánicas S. de R.L. de C.V., a local subsidiary of the claimant. Summary: Claims arising out of the decision by Mexico’s Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources to deny environmental permits for the claimant’s seabed mining project in the local subsidiary’s concession area, offshore from the coast of Baja California Sur in Mexico. Allegedly, the Ministry’s decision disregarded scientific evidence provided by the claimant in the project development plan and environmental impact assessment.	Seabed mining concession for a phosphate deposit in the Pacific Ocean held by Exploraciones Oceánicas S. de R.L. de C.V., a local subsidiary of the claimant.	Decided in favour of investor	Mexico	United States of America	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	8 - Other mining and quarrying	Bulnes Serrano, F. - President Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant Sands, P. - Respondent	1355.00 mln USD	37.10 mln USD	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar National treatment	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 17 September 2024 (English) Award dated 17 September 2024 (Spanish) Decision on the Interpretation of the Award dated 16 December 2024 (English) Decision on the Interpretation of the Award dated 16 December 2024 (Spanish)	Dissenting Opinion of Philippe Sands (English) Dissenting Opinion of Philippe Sands (Spanish)	None	None	None	None	None
20	2019	Petrochemical v. Romania	Petrochemical Holding GmbH v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/21)	The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: 96.5% shareholding in RAFO S.A., an oil refinery in Onești, Romania. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to provide a state guarantee in support of the modernization of the oil refinery RAFO in which the claimant had invested, and a seizure of some RAFO assets in 2015. According to the claimant, this interfered with its ability to revive the RAFO refinery and damaged its investment.	96.5% shareholding in RAFO S.A., an oil refinery in Onești, Romania.	Decided in favour of investor	Romania	Austria	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	19 - Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products	Binnie, I. - President Tawil, G. S. - Claimant Neuberger, D. - Respondent	835.80 mln EUR (882.70 mln USD)	85.00 mln EUR (89.80 mln USD)	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 19 November 2024	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Nolan, M. D. - President Núñez-Lagos, C. - Member Gleeson, J. - Member
21	2019	Qatar Pharma and Al Sulaiti v. Saudi Arabia	Qatar Pharma for Pharmaceutical Industries , W.L.L. and Ahmed Bin Mohammad Al Haie Al Sulaiti v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (ICC Case No. 25830/AYZ/ELU)	OIC Investment Agreement (1981)	ICC	ICC	Investment: Investments in two locally incorporated companies in the pharmaceutical industry and three warehouses for products in Riyadh, Jeddah and Dammam. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged repudiation of long-term sales contracts concluded between Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Health and the claimants, after Saudi Arabia suspended diplomatic relations with Qatar in 2017. According to the claimants, the Ministry’s measures included a failure to pay for products supplied by the claimants under these contracts and allegedly forced them to close their warehouses in the country.	Investments in two locally incorporated companies in the pharmaceutical industry and three warehouses for products in Riyadh, Jeddah and Dammam.	Decided in favour of investor	Saudi Arabia	Qatar	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	21 - Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations	Fernández-Armesto, J. - President Poncet, C. - Claimant Ziadé, N. - Respondent	1352.40 mln QAR (362.22 mln USD)	360.20 mln QAR (96.50 mln USD)	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar Umbrella clause Most-favoured nation treatment Transfer of funds Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Other	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar Most-favoured nation treatment Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Other	Final Award dated 23 October 2024	None	None	None	None	None	None
22	2019	Société Générale v. Croatia	Société Générale S.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/33)	Croatia - France BIT (1996)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Investments in the banking industry in Croatia. Summary: Claims arising out of the law that prescribed a change in the currency of loans, issued in Croatia, from Swiss Franc to the Euro.	Investments in the banking industry in Croatia.	Decided in favour of investor	Croatia	France	Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities	64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding	Tercier, P. - President (replaced) Bermann, G. - Claimant Mak, V. - Respondent Villanúa Gómez, D. - President	39.70 mln EUR (46.10 mln USD)	17.60 mln EUR (20.50 mln USD)	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 30 June 2025	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	None
23	2019	Strabag and others v. Germany	Erste Nordsee-Offshore Holding GmbH, Strabag SE, Zweite Nordsee-Offshore Holding GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/29)	The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Investments in offshore wind energy projects in the German North Sea and related permits. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s legislative changes of its renewable energy regime, including for offshore wind energy production, which allegedly caused the claimants to abandon their offshore wind projects.	Investments in offshore wind energy projects in the German North Sea and related permits.	Decided in favour of investor	Germany	Austria	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Heiskanen, V. - President Gill, J. - Claimant Malaguti, M. C. - Respondent	505.30 mln EUR (530.60 mln USD)	240.90 mln EUR (253.00 mln USD)	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Decision on preliminary objections pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) dated 24 July 2020 Award dated 18 December 2024 Decision on the Rectification of the Award dated 30 April 2025	Partial Dissenting Opinion by Maria Chiara Malaguti	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Ridings, P. - President Khan, M. A. - Member Levine, J. - Member
24	2019	Yu Song v. China	Jason Yu Song v. People's Republic of China (PCA Case No. 2019-39)	China - United Kingdom BIT (1986)	Data not available	PCA	Investment: Acquisition of shares in a company holding land use rights in the Province of Shaanxi. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s interference with and alleged expropriation of land use rights held by a company in which the claimant held shares.	Acquisition of shares in a company holding land use rights in the Province of Shaanxi.	Decided in favour of investor	China	United Kingdom	Tertiary: L - Real estate activities	68 - Real estate activities	Cheng, T. - President Paulsson, J. - Claimant Willems, J. - Respondent	Data not available	26.00 mln USD	Data not available	Data not available	Decision on Jurisdiction dated 30 December 2021 Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision on Jurisdiction dated 12 April 2024 Final Award dated 24 January 2025	None	Judicial review by national courts	Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts)	Judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal dated 17 April 2025 (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal dated 26 June 2025 (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None
25	2018	Abanto v. Venezuela	Dick Fernando Abanto Ishivata v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/18/6)	Peru - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1996)	ICSID AF	ICSID	Investment: Ownership of Omnivisión C.A., a local company holding telecommunications licences, via an indirect shareholding of 100 per cent. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged seizure of the claimant’s telecommunications company, including the eviction of the company’s employees from the property and the company’s placement under the control of a court-appointed audit board, due to alleged connections to criminal wrongdoing by third parties. According to the claimant, the company was transferred to private owners connected to the Government and subsequently dismantled.	Ownership of Omnivisión C.A., a local company holding telecommunications licences, via an indirect shareholding of 100 per cent.	Decided in favour of investor	Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of	Peru	Tertiary: J - Information and communication	61 - Telecommunications	Fernández-Armesto, J. - President Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant Torres Bernárdez, S. - Respondent (replaced) Fernández Antuña, A. - Respondent	Data not available	5.90 mln USD	Direct expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar Most-favoured nation treatment	Direct expropriation	Award dated 16 October 2024	Dissenting Opinion by Antolín Fernández Antuña	None	None	None	None	None

No results found

No.	Name	Cases as Respondent State	Cases as Home State of claimant
1	Albania	14	1
2	Algeria	15	2
3	Angola	2	0
4	Argentina	65	6
5	Armenia	8	1
6	Australia	6	14
7	Austria	1	33
8	Azerbaijan	7	1
9	Bahamas	0	2
10	Bahrain	4	1
11	Bangladesh	2	0
12	Barbados	1	9
13	Belarus	5	2
14	Belgium	5	22
15	Belize	4	0
16	Benin	1	0
17	Bermuda	0	1
18	Bolivia, Plurinational State of	19	1
19	Bosnia and Herzegovina	5	0
20	British Virgin Islands	0	1
21	Bulgaria	13	3
22	Burkina Faso	1	0
23	Burundi	4	0
24	Cabo Verde	1	0
25	Cambodia	1	0
26	Cameroon	3	0
27	Canada	36	80
28	Chile	9	10
29	China	9	20
30	Colombia	29	5
31	Comoros	1	0
32	Congo	3	0
33	Congo, Democratic Republic of the	4	0
34	Costa Rica	16	2
35	Croatia	20	3
36	Cuba	1	0
37	Cyprus	6	39
38	Czechia	43	8
39	Denmark	2	9
40	Dominican Republic	11	2
41	Ecuador	32	0
42	Egypt	48	7
43	El Salvador	5	1
44	Equatorial Guinea	2	0
45	Estonia	5	3
46	Ethiopia	6	0
47	European Union	2	0
48	Finland	3	3
49	France	4	69
50	Gabon	3	0
51	Gambia	2	0
52	Georgia	18	1
53	Germany	7	90
54	Ghana	4	0
55	Gibraltar	0	2
56	Greece	5	16
57	Grenada	2	0
58	Guatemala	9	2
59	Guinea	1	0
60	Guyana	1	0
61	Honduras	12	0
62	Hong Kong, China SAR	0	2
63	Hungary	18	4
64	India	30	12
65	Indonesia	7	1
66	Iran, Islamic Republic of	1	6
67	Iraq	6	0
68	Ireland	0	2
69	Israel	0	10
70	Italy	15	53
71	Jamaica	0	1
72	Japan	1	6
73	Jordan	10	10
74	Kazakhstan	22	7
75	Kenya	2	1
76	Korea, Republic of	10	9
77	Kuwait	7	9
78	Kyrgyzstan	18	1
79	Lao People's Democratic Republic	4	0
80	Latvia	10	5
81	Lebanon	6	7
82	Lesotho	2	0
83	Libya	23	2
84	Liechtenstein	0	1
85	Lithuania	9	8
86	Luxembourg	1	48
87	Macao, China SAR	0	1
88	Madagascar	4	0
89	Malaysia	4	10
90	Malta	1	5
91	Mauritius	4	18
92	Mexico	61	7
93	Moldova, Republic of	14	1
94	Mongolia	6	0
95	Montenegro	7	0
96	Morocco	10	0
97	Mozambique	5	0
98	Myanmar	3	0
99	Nepal	1	0
100	Netherlands	4	138
101	Nicaragua	3	0
102	Nigeria	5	0
103	North Macedonia	11	0
104	Norway	3	6
105	Oman	4	2
106	Pakistan	13	0
107	Panama	27	12
108	Papua New Guinea	1	0
109	Paraguay	4	0
110	Peru	36	5
111	Philippines	8	1
112	Poland	41	8
113	Portugal	1	10
114	Qatar	3	9
115	Romania	27	1
116	Russian Federation	34	28
117	Rwanda	2	0
118	Saudi Arabia	11	8
119	Senegal	7	0
120	Serbia	16	0
121	Seychelles	0	2
122	Sierra Leone	1	0
123	Singapore	0	17
124	Slovakia	14	1
125	Slovenia	6	3
126	South Africa	1	3
127	Spain	58	82
128	Sri Lanka	5	0
129	Sudan	2	0
130	Sweden	1	15
131	Switzerland	1	56
132	Syrian Arab Republic	2	0
133	Tajikistan	2	0
134	Tanzania, United Republic of	15	0
135	Thailand	2	0
136	Trinidad and Tobago	3	0
137	Tunisia	4	2
138	Türkiye	19	51
139	Turkmenistan	18	0
140	Uganda	1	0
141	Ukraine	38	19
142	United Arab Emirates	7	17
143	United Kingdom	2	129
144	United States of America	25	240
145	Uruguay	9	1
146	Uzbekistan	10	1
147	Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of	67	4
148	Viet Nam	13	0
149	Yemen	3	0
150	Zimbabwe	3	0

No results found

Top

Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

Known treaty-based ISDS cases:

About

Methodology

Disclaimer

Cases included in the Navigator

Sources of information and frequency of updating

Methodological notes for the recording of data

Share

Case name and number

Year

Countries

Economic sector and subsector

Applicable IIA

Arbitral rules and administering institution

Arbitrators and annulment committee members

Amount of compensation (USD or USD equivalent)

Breaches of IIA provisions alleged and found

Follow-on proceedings

Arbitrations initiated

Arbitral decisions issued

Follow-on decisions issued

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

BITs

Treaties with Investment Provisions

Year of signature

Applicable arbitration rules

Administering institution

Appointments in original proceedings

ICSID annulment committee members

Appointed by claimant

Appointed by / Designated to Respondent

President

Sole arbitrator

Sought by claimant(s)

Awarded by tribunal

Agreed in settlement

Breaches of IIA provisions alleged

Breaches of IIA provisions found

ICSID annulment proceedings

Judicial review by national courts

ICSID resubmission proceedings