By Dr. Ioana Maria Bratu, Daniela-Olivia Ghicajanu and Andra Curutiu

The Young IFILA Blog has decided to resume quarterly reports instead of biannual reviews. To accommodate this transition, the present report covers an extended period, including selected developments from May to September 2026. The third quarter showed ongoing shifts in the balance among investor protection, state sovereignty, and regulatory authority. Key developments included new investment arbitrations, notable decisions on jurisdiction, liability, and damages, and continued challenges in recognising and enforcing arbitral awards. States further revised their investment and trade frameworks, and international institutions progressed in discussions on investor-State dispute settlement reform. The quarter also underscored the growing significance of sanctions-related disputes and how domestic and international courts interpret treaty protections.

North America

Developments in investment law in North America over the last quarter can be characterised by continued scrutiny of investor-State protections and increased efforts to strengthen international trade and investment relationships.

On 29 May 2026, an ICSID tribunal unanimously rejected the claims brought by Silver Bull Resources, a US-based mining company, against Mexico in Silver Bull Resources, Inc. v. United Mexican States. Silver Bull commenced arbitration in 2023 under both NAFTA and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement over Mexico’s alleged failure to protect its Sierra Mojada mining project in Coahuila from an ongoing illegal blockade by a local mining cooperative that began in September 2019. The tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and that the claims were time-barred, and ordered Silver Bull to pay Mexico’s legal fees.

On 8 June 2026, the tribunal in Igor Viktorovich Makarov v. Canada was constituted and ready to begin work. The arbitration, brought by Moldovan-Cypriot national Igor Viktorovich Makarov under the Moldova-Canada BIT, concerns restrictive measures, including asset freezes, Canada adopted against him after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and their alleged impact on his investment in the Canadian energy company Spartan Delta. The tribunal comprises Cavinder Bull as President, Stephan Schill as the Claimant’s appointee, and Laurence Boisson de Chazournes as the Respondent’s appointee.

Mexico faced another ICSID arbitration on 15 July 2026 when US-based Access Business Group filed a new claim. This dispute follows an earlier proceeding where a majority ICSID tribunal dismissed Access Business Group’s claims in November 2025 on jurisdictional grounds. The claims alleged that Mexico expropriated approximately 280 hectares of agricultural land in Jalisco operated by its Mexican subsidiary, Nutrilite. On 24 July, the ICSID Secretary-General registered another arbitration against Mexico under the UK-Mexico BIT. Cadence Minerals Plc and REM Mexico Limited challenge the cancellation of the mining concessions underpinning the Sonora Lithium Project. The Claimants held a 30% interest through two Mexican joint ventures.

On 27 July 2026, a majority ICSID tribunal ordered Mexico to pay almost US$16 million in damages plus interest to US-based Vulcan Materials in the long-running Legacy Vulcan dispute over limestone operations in Quintana Roo. The tribunal found Mexico breached the fair and equitable treatment standard under Article 1105 of NAFTA when it ordered the closure of Vulcan’s El Corchalito property in January 2018. It rejected most of Vulcan’s approximately US$1.7 billion damages claim. One arbitrator issued an 18-page dissent, arguing the majority erred by declining jurisdiction over certain claims through an overly restrictive interpretation of the most-favoured-nation (MFN) clause and by denying compensation for treaty breaches the dissent considered established.

Canada recorded a significant trade-policy development in recent months. On 24 July 2026, it announced the conclusion of negotiations for a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with the United Arab Emirates. The agreement, described as one of Canada’s fastest-negotiated agreements, aims to strengthen trade and investment relations, reduce trade barriers, improve market access for Canadian businesses in the UAE, and create new opportunities for businesses in both countries.

Asia and the Middle East

The evolving investment law landscape across Asia and the Middle East in the third quarter of 2026 reflected a continued emphasis on the interaction between sovereign regulatory powers and investor rights. A notable trend was the continued exposure of states to investment claims arising from financial restrictions and regulatory measures.

On 21 May 2026, the ICSID Secretary-General registered a request for arbitration by the Al Habtoor Group and related UAE investors against Lebanon. The dispute concerns real estate and tourism investments and alleges losses of more than US$1.7 billion due to restrictions on access to funds held in Lebanese banks. The investors first attempted good-faith negotiations under the UAE-Lebanon BIT, but these failed, so the dispute proceeded to arbitration. This case is the seventh publicly known investment arbitration against Lebanon.

On 16 July 2026, the German Federal Tribunal confirmed enforcement of the award in General Dynamics v. Libya. The underlying ICC arbitration, seated in Geneva, resulted in an order in January 2016, requiring Libya to pay more than GBP 16 million after contractual defaults under a 2008 agreement to supply a tactical communications and information system for Libyan army vehicles. The German court held that Libya was not entitled to immunity from jurisdiction because a state’s purchase of goods or services, even if intended for military purposes, constitutes an act jure gestionis. The court assessed sovereign immunity under customary international law and the German Code of Civil Procedure. Unlike the court in the English proceedings, the German court did not need to determine whether Libya had waived sovereign immunity by entering into the contract.

On 22 July 2026, the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted Qatar National Bank’s petition to recognise and enforce a US$1 billion ICSID award against South Sudan. The award concerned South Sudan’s partial default under a loan facility agreement guaranteed by its central bank, the Bank of South Sudan. The US court found it had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, and entered a default judgment against South Sudan, which had not appeared in the US proceedings, and a summary judgment against South Sudan’s National Bank.

In Kazakhstan, the claims in the new case of Agip Caspian Sea B.V. and others v. Republic of Kazakhstan arise under the France-Kazakhstan BIT, the Netherlands-Kazakhstan BIT, and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). They concern Kazakhstan’s decision to impose a US$4.6 billion environmental fine on a joint venture operating in the Kashagan oil field, which is one of the country’s largest. The tribunal comprises Christopher Greenwood as President, Henri Alvarez as the Claimants’ appointee, and Claus von Wobeser as the Respondent’s appointee.

On 25 August 2026, Singapore announced its intention to bid to host the proposed Multilateral Investment Tribunal, which remains under negotiation in UNCITRAL Working Group III.

A further enforcement-related development arose in the United States concerning Libya. On 4 September 2026, the US District Court for the District of Columbia denied a protective order motion by Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) regarding post-judgment discovery subpoenas issued by Turkish contractor Etrak İnşaat Taahhüt. The court initially considered NOC’s claim to jurisdictional immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as one of a separate state entity. However, it concluded that Etrak had presented sufficient factual grounds to support its contention that NOC might be Libya’s alter ego. The court therefore allowed further jurisdictional discovery.

On 9 September 2026, Hong Kong and Bangladesh signed an Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement to strengthen investment protection and economic and trade relations. Although the agreement’s text is not yet public at the time of writing, available information indicated it would provide investors with protections such as access to arbitration or mediation against the host government, fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory treatment, compensation for expropriation, and the right to transfer investments and returns abroad.

The tribunal in Akfel Commodities Pte. Ltd. and I-Systems Global B.V. v. Republic of Türkiye was formed on 16 September 2026 to consider Türkiye’s request to revise an earlier award. The dispute concerns the Turkish government’s seizure in late 2016 of Akfel Group’s assets due to alleged links to FETÖ, the movement associated with Fethullah Gülen and accused by Turkish authorities of orchestrating the failed 2016 coup. In July 2025, an ICSID tribunal issued a majority award finding Türkiye liable for indirect expropriation and breaches of the relevant BITs with Singapore and the Netherlands. Türkiye initiated revision proceedings on 24 March 2026.

Europe

Europe saw active developments in investment treaty interpretation, intra-EU arbitration, the ECT, and sanctions-related proceedings and enforcement. On 26 May 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the dismissal of Albania’s application to set aside the award in Hydro, Becchetti and others v. Albania. In 2019, an ICSID tribunal found that Albania unlawfully expropriated the Claimants’ Agonset media investment and ordered Albania to pay EUR 99.5 million in damages, plus interest and costs. The Paris Court of Appeal held that French courts lack jurisdiction to review ICSID awards because the ICSID system is autonomous and self-contained. It also rejected the argument that Paris’s designation as the place of proceedings gave French courts jurisdiction to review the award.

On 21 July 2026, the Rotterdam District Court issued a further judgment in the continuing enforcement saga concerning intra-EU ECT awards against Spain. The court lifted an attachment imposed by Blasket Renewable Investments against a Spanish-owned property in Utrecht used by the Instituto Cervantes, holding that the property benefited from immunity from execution.

The European Commission opened an in-depth investigation on 3 August 2026 to assess whether Spain’s payment of the award in JGC Holdings Corporation v. Spain constituted unlawful state aid under EU law. In 2021, an ICSID tribunal ordered Spain to pay about US$23 million in damages plus interest to JGC related to changes in Spain’s renewable energy incentive scheme. Blasket Renewable Investments later acquired the rights to the award and received payment from Spain around June 2025. The Commission’s investigation is significant because it treats payment of an award held by a non-EU investor as potentially unlawful state aid.

On 14 August 2026, an ICSID tribunal unanimously dismissed two jurisdictional objections raised by Georgia in Mirian G. Dekanoidze and T.G. Trade LLC v. Georgia. The dispute concerns the alleged forced relinquishment of T.G. Trade’s interest in a Georgian railway-repair factory after a state-assisted harassment campaign and court proceedings. Georgia argued that Dekanoidze was not a protected investor because he held dual US-Georgian nationality at the relevant time and did not personally own the investment since his wife held the shares. The tribunal rejected both objections, finding that his dual nationality did not bar jurisdiction and that the investment qualified as protected under Georgia’s concept of joint marital property.

Bulgaria took a significant step on 25 August 2026 by depositing written notice of its withdrawal from the ECT with the Energy Charter Secretariat. The withdrawal will take effect on 26 August 2027, one year after notification. It will also activate the ECT’s 20-year sunset clause. Importantly, this means that investments made before withdrawal may continue to benefit from treaty protection until August 2047. Similarly, Moldova notified its withdrawal from the ECT on 29 September 2026 and the withdrawal will take effect on 30 September 2027.

On 28 August 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Spain’s request for an en banc hearing in appeals involving Cube Infrastructure Fund v. Spain, Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg et al. v. Spain, Watkins Holdings and others v. Spain, RREEF v. Spain, InfraRed Environmental and others v. Spain, and BayWa r.e. v. Spain. The court allowed the European Commission to participate as amicus curiae supporting Spain’s position. Written submissions were scheduled for October and November 2026.

Enforcement activity related to the Russia-Ukraine context continued. According to public sources, a Norwegian court upheld Naftogaz’s attachment request on 31 August 2026. The court issued a judgment ordering the seizure of the Russian commercial expedition vessel Professor Molchanov as part of Naftogaz’s global enforcement strategy for its PCA award against the Russian Federation.

On 9 September 2026, an arbitral tribunal was constituted in the ad hoc arbitration brought by Mikhail Fridman against the United Kingdom. The arbitration concerns restrictive measures the UK adopted against Fridman after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The tribunal comprises Miguel Virgós as President, Maja Stanivuković as the Claimant’s appointee, and Jean Kalicki as the Respondent’s appointee.

On 11 September 2026, an annulment committee was constituted in Theodoros Adamakopoulos and others v. Republic of Cyprus. The proceeding follows an ICSID award ordering Cyprus to pay foreign investors more than EUR 2.8 million for failing to provide fair and equitable treatment related to the 2013 bank bail-in. During Cyprus’s financial crisis and the EU/IMF assistance programme, the authorities implemented a bail-in. This involved the resolution of Laiki Bank and restructuring of the Bank of Cyprus, as well as imposing losses on depositors and holders of financial instruments through write-downs and converting certain claims into equity.

Croatia announced on 11 September 2026 that it had deposited its instrument of ratification for the ‘modernisation’-amendments of the ECT. According to the political compromise reached by the EU Council in May 2024, EU Member States can still participate in the modernisation of the ECT. However, in January 2026, the European Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Member States remaining parties to the ECT, arguing that their unauthorised participation infringed the EU’s exclusive competence and required withdrawal. Croatia became the second EU Member State to ratify the modernised treaty, following Slovakia’s deposit of the instrument of ratification in March 2026. Unlike several other EU Member States, Croatia did not withdraw from the 1994 ECT but instead ratified the modernised ECT.

In EP Wind Project (Rom) Six Ltd. v. Romania, the tribunal issued its final award on quantum on 14 September 2026. In its March 2025 award, the tribunal rejected Romania’s intra-EU jurisdictional objection and found that Romania breached the Cypriot investor’s legitimate expectations by changing its Green Certificates incentive system. In the quantum phase, the tribunal found that the investor suffered no recoverable loss from the breach and held Romania liable for no compensation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

On 16 September 2026, Italy filed a request to annul the ICSID award rendered in September 2025 in Veolia’s favour in Veolia Propreté SAS v. Italian Republic. The tribunal rejected Italy’s intra-EU jurisdictional objection and found that Italy breached the ECT’s umbrella and fair and equitable treatment provisions regarding measures on concessions for constructing, operating, and maintaining a waste-to-energy project. The tribunal ordered Italy to pay the French investor EUR 85 million plus interest.

On 23 June 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal annulled a costs decision in the OschadBank v. Russia PCA arbitration in relation to measures adopted by Russia following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Russia challenged the decision, citing concerns about co-arbitrator Judge Charles Brower’s independence. He had participated in an amicus curiae brief before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2024. The Paris court sided with Russia and annulled the costs decision.

On 26 June 2026, in Zaza Okuashvili v. Georgia, the Swedish Supreme Court considered the interpretation of the MFN clause in the United Kingdom-Georgia BIT. The Court held that interpretation should focus on the treaty’s wording and the contracting parties’ agreement, with particular weight given to their express extension of the MFN clause to dispute settlement. Applying the interpretative rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), it concluded that the clause could permit the investor to invoke the SCC arbitration option provided for in the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union-Georgia BIT. The judgment illustrates the role of international treaty interpretation rules in national courts’ interpretation of investment treaties.

On 22 September 2026, the Council of the EU adopted a decision and implementing regulation modifying the existing Russia-related sanctions regime. It removed Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman from the EU sanctions list following a diplomatic process. Fridman remains subject to UK sanctions and is involved in investment arbitration proceedings against the Netherlands, Luxembourg (see the recently published blogpost), and the United Kingdom concerning sanctions-related asset freezes and restrictions. The implications of the EU delisting for those proceedings remain to be seen.

On 24 September 2026, the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion and order on enforcing the ICSID award in Eurus Energy v. Spain. The court allowed the assignment of rights in the enforcement action, reasoning that Article 54 of the ICSID Convention contains no language prohibiting the assignment of rights related to enforcement of an ICSID award and that national law governs the issue at the enforcement stage. This decision contrasts with the OperaFund v. Spain proceedings in the United Kingdom, where the High Court rejected assigning enforcement rights to a third party.

South America, Central America and the Caribbean

The region saw a combination of new investment arbitrations, disputes over natural resources and infrastructure, and developments at the enforcement and set-aside stages. On 4 June 2026, the ICSID Secretary-General registered the proceedings in Roberto Cuadrado and Luis Fuentealba Meier v. Republic of Ecuador, by Spanish and Chilean investors against Ecuador under the Spain-Ecuador and Chile-Ecuador BITs. The dispute concerns a real estate project agreement.

On 31 August 2026, the tribunal in SMM Cerro Verde Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Peru reported that it had rendered its award. The Dutch investor, a subsidiary of Sumitomo Metal Mining, brought claims under the Netherlands-Peru BIT over disputed royalty and tax assessments related to the Cerro Verde copper mine. The award was not yet public at the time of writing, but ICSID reported that the Claimant-appointed arbitrator, Oscar Garibaldi, issued a dissenting opinion.

Venezuela also emerged as a hotspot for investment arbitration developments during the quarter. On 1 September 2026, public reports indicated that two European oil and gas companies, Delta Finance B.V. of the Netherlands and Suelopetrol Exploración y Producción S.A. of Spain, were considering arbitration against Venezuela and the state-owned oil company PDVSA. The potential claims relate to the transfer of rights in certain Venezuelan oil fields to a US company. The matter remains in its early stages.

On the same date, ICSID announced the constitution of the tribunal in Ferrer Internacional S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador under the Ecuador-Spain BIT. The dispute arises from an Ecuadorian court judgment. The Spanish pharmaceutical company alleges that Ecuador’s judicial system denied justice and breached the BIT by refusing to recognise and enforce a 2024 ICC award. The tribunal includes Valeria Galíndez as President, Ignacio Suárez Anzorena as the Claimant’s appointee, and Sabina Sacco as the Respondent’s appointee.

On 9 September 2026, the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima filed a petition in the US District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to partially vacate an award in Rutas de Lima v. Lima, invoking the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitration concerns a concession agreement under which Rutas de Lima, a Peruvian company majority-owned by Canadian group Brookfield, was to construct and operate highways in Lima in exchange for the right to collect toll revenues for 30 years. In June 2026, a UNCITRAL tribunal dismissed three initial claims and found the parties concurrently liable for disrupting the contract’s financial framework. A majority of the tribunal found Lima’s early termination of the concession unlawful. At the same time, arbitrator Mr. Balbi dissented, considering that Lima had validly exercised sovereign authority to terminate the concession on public-interest grounds.

Africa

There was substantial activity in investment arbitration in Africa, coupled with domestic investment-law reform. On 2 June 2026, the tribunal in Travizory Border Security SA v. Republic of Kenya was constituted under the Switzerland-Kenya BIT. The Swiss Claimant specialises in border technology services for governments. It alleges that Kenya breached its treaty obligations by failing to protect the claimant’s investment in developing a high-tech visa-management system. The tribunal comprises D. Brian King as President, Cyrus Benson as the Claimant’s appointee, and Dan Sarooshi as the Respondent’s appointee.

On 12 June 2026, the tribunal in Axis International Limited v. Republic of Guinea was constituted. The UAE-based mining company initiated ICSID proceedings under the Guinea-UAE BIT after Guinea revoked its bauxite mining permit. The Claimant seeks approximately US$29 billion in damages. The tribunal includes Jan Paulsson as President, Klaus Reichert as the Claimant’s appointee, and Makane Moïse Mbengue as the Respondent’s appointee.

Ghana introduced significant changes to its investment framework during the quarter. On 15 July 2026, the Ghana Investment Promotion Authority Bill 2026, Act 1173, received presidential assent and took effect. The legislation modernises Ghana’s investment framework by removing minimum capital requirements for most foreign investors. It also establishes an investor grievance mechanism and assigns Ghana’s Investment Promotion Authority as the national central point for the AfCFTA Investment Protocol. Ghana’s Parliament passed the legislation in April 2026.

On 16 July 2026, Fernando Mantilla-Serrano accepted appointment as arbitrator in Falcon Energy Materials plc v. Republic of Guinea after Guinea’s appointment. The ICSID case was registered on 31 March 2026 under the Guinea-UAE BIT and concerns the Guinean authorities’ revocation of the Claimant’s exploration and exploitation permits. Falcon Energy, a UAE-based company, is reportedly seeking approximately US$100 million in damages.

A notable annulment occurred in Gambia on 17 July 2026. An ICSID ad hoc committee annulled a US$33 million award against Gambia after finding the original tribunal failed to state reasons as required by Article 52(1)(e) of the ICSID Convention. The dispute arose from the June 2015 seizure of a shrimp-farming business by Gambian military units acting on instructions from former President Yahya Jammeh. In March 2024, a majority tribunal upheld jurisdiction and found that Gambia unlawfully expropriated the Claimants’ investment. The annulment is notable because it is the first reported instance of an award being annulled in full solely because the tribunal failed to state reasons under Article 52(1)(e).

On 17 August 2026, Libyan Foreign Bank commenced ICSID arbitration against Burkina Faso under the ICSID Additional Facility Arbitration Rules. The dispute arose from Burkina Faso’s May 2024 decision to nationalise Banque Commerciale du Burkina. Libyan Foreign Bank held a 50% stake.

Enforcement proceedings involving Djibouti produced an important English court decision. On 24 July 2026, the English High Court granted Soprim Construction a final charging order over approximately US$41.6 million held in London bank accounts to secure unpaid awards of more than US$100 million against Djibouti. Although the accounts were registered in the name of a third-party company, Doraleh Container Terminal SA, the court held that the funds were held on an English-law bare trust for Djibouti’s benefit. The court applied English law under Article 7 of the Hague Trusts Convention because the bank accounts were physically located in London.

On 4 September 2026, the tribunal in Gruppo Officine Piccini S.p.A. v. Republic of Cameroon rendered its award. The proceedings concern a construction project. The case had been registered in June 2023 but appeared to have been suspended before the award was rendered.

Australia and Oceania

In Australia and Oceania, the main developments concerned treaty jurisdiction and a continuing dispute involving the Port of Darwin. On 15 June 2026, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejected proceedings by Australian mining businessman Clive Palmer seeking to overturn the dismissal of a US$198 billion claim against Australia in Zeph Investments Pte Ltd v. Commonwealth of Australia. In 2023, Palmer’s Singapore-based company, Zeph Investments, brought a claim under the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement in relation to Western Australian legislation affecting the proposed Balmoral South Iron Ore Project in the Pilbara. In September 2025, a Geneva-seated UNCITRAL tribunal chaired by Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler unanimously declined jurisdiction. It found that Zeph was not a protected investor under the treaty and ordered Zeph to pay Australia about US$9.6 million in costs. The subsequent Swiss proceedings to set aside the award were unsuccessful.

On 25 August 2026, ICSID announced the constitution of the tribunal in Ye Cheng and others v. Commonwealth of Australia. The dispute had been filed earlier in 2026 under the Australia-China Free Trade Agreement and concerns Australian government measures affecting entities associated with the Landbridge Group in relation to its 99-year lease over the Port of Darwin. The tribunal comprises Maxi Scherer as President, Klaus Reichert as the Claimants’ appointee, and Lucy Reed as the Respondent’s appointee.

ISDS Reform and Other Legislative Developments

Beyond individual disputes, the quarter showed continued work on reforming the international investment dispute settlement system. From 3 to 5 June 2026, UNCITRAL Working Group III held a workshop in Rabat, Morocco, focused on implementing ISDS reform for African states. The workshop included training sessions for public officials on the Working Group III process and developing ISDS reforms.

From 29 June to 10 July 2026, the 59^th session of UNCITRAL took place in New York and issues pertaining to ISDS and the activities of Working Group III were discussed as well. The Commission finalised the draft statute of the Advisory Centre on International Investment Dispute Resolution for submission to the UN General Assembly and adopted supplementary provisions on the conduct of investment dispute proceedings. It also considered proposals to host the Advisory Centre. Eight States had submitted proposals to host the Advisory Centre’s headquarters or a regional office: Armenia, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, France, Ghana, Morocco and Thailand.

Between 7 and 9 September 2026, UNCITRAL Working Group III held its 10^th intersessional meeting in Ninh Binh, Vietnam. Discussions focused on two draft proposals to create a permanent tribunal and an appellate tribunal for international investment disputes. The proposals include standing mechanisms inspired by the WTO dispute settlement system and the EU’s approach to investment dispute settlement in recent free trade agreements, including the Multilateral Investment Court model (on the topic of a permanent tribunal and appellate body, see the recent blogpost).

On 14 September 2026, the International Law Commission published its report on its 77th session. It revealed that it had added the right of host states to regulate in international investment law to its long-term programme of work. The decision reflects increased state activity in treaty drafting and the inclusion of host-state regulatory powers in newer bilateral and multilateral investment treaties. The work aims to consider how host states can preserve regulatory powers while providing foreign investors with adequate protection of their investments, economic rights, and assets. Although it is too early to determine the outcome, the Commission indicated that one possible result could be guidelines for governments and treaty negotiators addressing fundamental questions during the negotiation and lifecycle of investment treaties.

ICSID published its first comprehensive study of contract-based investment arbitration on 30 June 2026. The study includes statistics on contract-based cases and new model clauses for investment contracts, arbitration, mediation, and fact-finding. It reports that ICSID had registered 175 contract-based arbitrations, with 46 still pending. These cases represented 17% of all ICSID cases. Africa accounted for 49% and South America for 21%. Oil, gas, and mining were the dominant industries, making up 47% of cases, followed by electrical power and other energy sources at 26%. Alongside the study, ICSID published revised model clauses, the first revision since 1993.

Institutional and Other Developments

This quarter was significant for institutional developments within ICSID. On 26 August 2026, ICSID opened its Singapore office, its first staffed branch outside Washington, D.C. ICSID Chief Counsel Frauke Nitschke and Senior Legal Counsel Jon Chevry lead the office. ICSID also announced plans to open a second staffed office in Paris in November.

Young IFILA Blog Editorial Team Changes

During the quarter, the Young IFILA Blog also underwent some significant developments! Our team expanded, and we are proud to welcome Dr Stanislava Nedeva, Carole Cherif, and Qian Zhang. Dr Stanislava Nedeva is a Lecturer in Law at Cardiff University. Her main research expertise and passion lie in international investment law, international arbitration, and energy investments (oil and gas). She regularly publishes, teaches, and presents in these fields. Carole Cherif is an arbitration practitioner with experience at top firms in Cairo and Paris, including Youssef + Partners, Derains & Gharavi, and Eversheds Sutherland. She is currently a PhD candidate in investment arbitration at the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. Qian Zhang is a PhD candidate in International Economic Law at Zhejiang University. Her research focuses on the intersection of international investment law, human rights law and sustainable development.

Conclusion

For this quarter, we can conclude that international investment law continues to evolve at the intersection of investor protection and states’ exercise of sovereign authority. New arbitrations and significant awards reaffirmed the continuing role of investment treaties in addressing alleged expropriation, unfair treatment, and other breaches of investor protections. However, decisions on jurisdiction, annulment, and enforcement highlighted the procedural and legal complexities that can determine the outcome of investment disputes. The continued enforcement of awards against states, particularly in Europe and the United States, also illustrated the importance of national courts in giving effect to arbitral decisions. Sovereign immunity and intra-EU objections remained recurring obstacles.

At the same time, the quarter indicates a broader movement towards reform and recalibration of the investment regime. Developments such as Ghana’s investment law reform, the ongoing modernisation and withdrawal processes surrounding the Energy Charter Treaty, and UNCITRAL’s work on a possible permanent and appellate investment tribunal point to growing efforts to balance the protection of foreign investment with states’ regulatory autonomy. The increasing prominence of sanctions-related claims and questions concerning environmental regulation further underline the changing nature of investment disputes. Taken together, these developments suggest that the future direction of international investment law will be shaped by how well the system can accommodate the pressing demands for greater institutional coherence and legitimacy.