New ICSID Statistics (2013-2) made public, by José Ángel Rueda

On 31 July 2013 ICSID issued its updated caseload statistics on cases registered and administered by the Centre.[1] As of 30 June 2013 ICSID had registered 433 cases under the 1965 ICSID Convention and the 1978 Additional Facility Rules (AFR). It had registered 14 cases in 2013 until the closure of that document.[2] 

As usual in previous caseload documents,[3] the main basis of consent invoked to establish ICSID jurisdiction under the ICSID Convention and AFR has been IIAs (74%), of which BITs were invoked in 65% of cases, ECT (4%), NAFTA Chapter 11 (3%), DR-CAFTA Chapter 10 (1%), ASEAN APPI (0.5%) and Oman-US FTA (0.5%). Investment contracts between foreign investors and host States accounted for just 19% of cases while investment laws of host States accounted for a mere 7%.[4]

Statistics on geographical distribution of cases by State Party involved do not clearly allow to see whether respondent States were developing or not (of course a case-by-case analysis is permitted by ICSID’s website among the lists of concluded and pending cases).[5] The division was made into continents and subcontinents: South America (29%), Eastern Europe & Central Asia (24%), Sub-Saharan Africa (16%), Middle East & North Africa (10%), South & East Asia & the Pacific Rim (8%), Central America & the Caribbean (6%), North America –NAFTA States– (5%) and Western Europe (2%).

Economic sectors involved until 30 June 2013 were as follows[6]: Oil, Gas & Mining (25%), Electric Power & Other Energy (12%), Transportation (11%), Construction (7%), Finance (7%), Information & Communication (6%), Water, Sanitation & Flood Protection (6%), Agriculture, Fishing & Forestry (5%), Services & Trade (4%) and Tourism (4%). Other industries were at issue in the remaining 13% of cases.

Finally, statistics on the outcome of arbitration proceedings reveal that not always does a foreign investor prevail when suing a host State at ICSID. First, just 63% of the disputes have been decided by the arbitral tribunals while in the remaining 37% of cases the dispute was settled or the proceeding was discontinued.[7] Second, of the disputes decided by arbitral tribunals under the ICSID Convention and the AFR,[8] 47% of cases resulted in awards upholding claims in part or in full, 28% cases were decided with awards dismissing all claims and in 23% of cases there were awards declining jurisdiction. An additional 1% represents awards deciding that the claims were manifestly without legal merit.[9]

Four new cases were registered by ICSID between 1 and 19 July 2013 against Cameroon, Tunisia, Mali and Bulgaria.

[2] See p. 7. At p. 8, chart 2 indicates that 13 cases were under the ICSID Convention and 1 under the Additional Facility Rules. The 14 cases were arbitration proceedings.

[4] See p. 10, chart 5.

[5] See p. 11, chart 6.

[6] See p. 12, chart 7.

[7] See p. 13, chart 8.

[8] See p. 14, chart 8a.

[9] Pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) and Article 45(6) of the Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules, as adopted by the ICSID Administrative Council in 2006.