Tag Archives: Statistics

UNCTAD updates ISDS statistics for 2016

Blogg_v9United Nation Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is the UN body responsible for investment issues. It regularly publishes reports and analyses about ISDS, as well as on about general investment treaty trends, including an annual update on recent developments. We have written about the reports from 2014 and 2015, but recently UNCTAD also updated its database with information from 2016.

 

Examples of statistics from this latest development include:

  • There were 62 new ISDS cases in 2016, a relatively high number compared to earlier years, with the exception of 2015, when 74 cases were initiated.
  • Colombia, India and Spain were the most frequent respondent states (with four cases each) but the cases were spread over 49 different host states.
  • The United States and the Netherlands were the most common investor nationalities.
  • Roughly two thirds of the cases were brought under bilateral treaties, but 10 were based on the multilateral Energy Charter Treaty.

All UNCTAD data, including the updates from 2016, are available in a searchable database here.

ICSID Statistics: Increased Diversity of Arbitrators

National flags of different countryThe ICSID Secretariat has recently published its latest case statistics where it reports that up to 30 June 2016, the number of overall ISDS cases has reached 570 cases.

Overall, most respondent states are countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and South America.

Investors involved in overall ICSID cases mostly come from the service industry, where information and communication, finance, service and trade, transportation and tourisms sector together make up 29% of claimants.

As for outcome of the cases, States are successful in the majority of cases. ICSID reports that tribunals have declined jurisdiction in 26% of cases, dismissed all claims in 27% of cases and upheld claims in partial or in full in 46% of cases.

The report also covers cases initiated and completed in ICSID Fiscal Year 2016, which is the period of 1 July 2015 –30 June 2016. In this period, most cases involved investors in power and energy industry, followed by the service sector.

There is an apparent increase in diversity of arbitrators in terms of nationality during the Fiscal Year 2016. During this period, arbitrators, conciliators and ad hoc committee members from South America, Central America and the Carribean, Middle East and North America, Sub-Saharan America, South & East Asia and the Pacific, Eastern Europe and Central Asia made up 39% of cases. This represents a significant improvement compared to just 24% in the previous fiscal year.

JUST PUBLISHED: Predicting the Outcomes of ISDS

StatisticJan2016The research uses data from 159 cases where arbitrators rendered awards that resulted in a determination of damages. The awards examined were those that are publicly-available as of 1 January 2012.

Here are some key findings:

  1. States were successful in 60.4% of the cases, and investors won approximately 39.6% of the cases.
  2. In cases when investors won, they generally obtained roughly one-third of the compensation claimed.
  3. Focusing exclusively on the small subset of cases where investors obtained damages, investors obtained a mean award of US$45.6 million.
  4. For the eight largest claims, only one case was successful.
  5. The vast majority of investors bringing billion-dollar claims obtained nothing.

New Report: ICSID Cases Relating to Asia

magnifying glass on a document with columns of figures

The ICSID Secretariat recently published a statistics report focusing on the South and East Asia and the Pactific (SEAP) region.

As of 1 October 2015, a total of 539 cases have been registered with the ICSID Secretariat since 1972. Of those 539 cases, 42 involved a state party from the SEAP region—including 8 cases against Pakistan, 7 against Indonesia, 5 against Bangladesh, 4 against the Philippines, and 3 each against Korea, Malaysia and Sri Lanka. In 13 of the 42 cases involving SEAP states, the investor bringing the claim was also from a SEAP country; in the remaining cases, the investor was from a country outside the SEAP region.

Of the 42 cases involving a SEAP state:

  • 62 percent were based on a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), and 29 percent were based on an investment contract between the investor and the host state.
  • 43 percent settled, and 57 percent were decided by an arbitral tribunal. Of the cases that were decided by an arbitral tribunal, 47 percent ended in an award declining jurisdiction, 24 percent resulted in an award dismissing all of the investors’ claims, and 29 percent ended in an award upholding the investor’s claims in part or in full.
  • 38 percent concerned the oil, gas and mining industry; 12 percent related to electric power or other energy; and the transportation, construction, and services/trade sectors accounted for 10 percent each.

A number of SEAP nationals have served as arbitrators in ICSID cases. In total, as of 1 October 2015, SEAP nationals accounted for about 11 percent of all appointments made in ICSID cases. Most of the SEAP appointees were from Australia and New Zealand, but Singapore, the Philippines and Bangladesh are also represented on the list of appointees.

Arbitrators’ expertise makes ISDS strong

???????As investment and trade develop, disputes will be more diverse. Looking back at history, the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) only registered 28 ISDS cases during the first two decades after its establishment. In contrast, there have been 38 cases registered at the ICSID in the year 2014 alone. The substantive issues of disputes have become more diverse, and therefore a wider range of expertise is needed to solve the disputes.

One cannot perceive how future disputes will look like and what expertise will be required. At the same time, the quality of ISDS outcome needs to be ensured. The current practice has served this purpose by allowing parties to the dispute and/or arbitration institutes to appoint arbitrators from a broad range of expertise, as opposed to a pre-determined list.

Let’s look at some of the cases. In Glamis Gold v. USA, the tribunal had to decide whether a requirement to conduct a certain mining technique had constituted an indirect expropriation. This case required expertise to assess the value of the mining project, including evaluation of mineral price. In fact, the tribunal contributed 100-page analysis only on this issue.

In another case, Methanex v. USA, the tribunal was faced with lengthy submissions from parties on whether or not a certain chemical for fuel production was dangerous for the environment. In addition, there have been other complicated disputes on, among other things, electricity pricing and gas pricing. The above cases are only small part in the big pool of ISDS cases which requires specific expertise.

The current system of arbitrator’s appointment has made international arbitration able to adapt with the present needs of dispute resolution. Most importantly, it can keep up with the trade development. It is therefore unwise to replace this important feature with a pre-determined list of arbitrators.

UNCTAD 2014 ISDS Trends

UNCTAD have released an infographic with statistics about ISDS trends in 2014.

It presents the number of concluded, on-going and new cases cases during 2014. It also answers the following questions:

What was the outcome of the concluded cases? Which are the most frequent home-countries of claimant investors? How many claims were made against developing countries?

UNCTAD is the United Nations body responsible for dealing with development issues, particularly international trade and is governed by its 194 member States.

ISDS trends 2014_2_red2

Click image to enlarge and to download 

Comprehensive Empirical Study on Impact of BIT to the flow of FDI

isdsbitpostA recent empirical paper by CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, a research institute under the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, explains the effects of BITs (Bilateral Investment Treaties) on bilateral foreign direct investment (FDI) stocks for various regions and country income groups.

The sample in this paper is formed by 217 countries from 1985 to 2011, making it the largest and most recent period utilized in nearly all studies covering the effect of BITs on FDI. Other papers have often used a shorter period of time or a smaller sample. Reference can be made to a paper by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which reviews different studies on this issue. Our previous post has discussed this paper.

Below are some findings of the CPB paper:

  1. If countries have ratified a BIT then they invest on average 35% more in terms of stocks than country pairs without a ratified BIT.
  2. The effect differs between countries classified by income group (based on World Bank’s classification). Upper middle income countries seem to benefit the most from BITs. The impact on FDI stocks is about twice the average effect. Examples of upper middle income countries are Romania, Greece and Hungary.
  3. Region-wise, FDI impact is much larger if the host country is located in East Asia or Middle and Eastern Europe.
  4. The number of BITs among developed countries is about 500.