ICSID sees multi-year high in state-investor, resource and energy disputes

In newly released case load statistics (34-page // 849KB PDF), ICSID reported 60 new cases in the year ending 30 June 2026, compared to 67 during the same period in the previous year.

Despite this modest decline, Cem Kalelioglu, an expert in international arbitration at Pinsent Masons, said that the case load remains above numbers seen in previous years, suggesting that the ICSID will continue to experience a period of sustained high activity.

“Extractive industries remain the backbone of the ICSID caseload, representing 43 per cent of all new registrations,” he said.

“The concentration of disputes in extractives reflects the continued impact of regulatory reform, resource nationalism, energy transition policies, environmental regulation, local content requirements, and licence review programmes.”

22% of new cases involved states in South America, while Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for 20%. Across Africa and Latin America, governments have increasingly revisited mining codes, taxation frameworks, permitting regimes and local participation requirements.

Kalelioglu said: “These measures are often politically attractive domestically but can generate significant tensions with foreign investors who entered these areas under earlier regulatory frameworks.”

“Many of these reforms are driven by legitimate public policy objectives, including increasing domestic participation, strengthening environmental protections and ensuring that host states obtain a greater share of resource revenues,” he said.

“However, such reforms also increase the likelihood of disputes where investors consider that the legal framework under which they invested has fundamentally changed.”

Bilateral trade agreements represented 62% of all newly registered cases, a 4% increase compared to the previous year, which Kalelioglu said: “demonstrate that states and state-owned entities continue to regard the ICSID as an attractive forum for resolving disputes arising from major investment contracts, concessions, infrastructure projects and resource-development agreements.”

“The settlement data underlines one of the most attractive features of the ICSID system: a significant proportion of proceedings never reach a final merits award,” he said.

“For investors, the ability to invoke ICSID jurisdiction can provide substantial leverage in negotiations with states and state-owned entities. In many cases, the greatest value of the system lies not in obtaining an award, but in creating the incentives required to avoid one.”

Investors from Western Europe represented the largest share of new cases at 45%, following by the Middle East, North Africa, and South and East Asia each at 14%.

Kalelioglu said the introduction of mediation statistics is particularly noteworthy when viewed alongside ICSID’s consistently high settlement rates.

“While these numbers remain relatively modest, they likely represent the beginning of a broader trend rather than an isolated development. Looking ahead, it would not be surprising to see future generations of BITs, investment codes and state-investor contracts increasingly incorporate mandatory consultation, structured negotiation or even mandatory mediation requirements before arbitration may be commenced," he said.

“A number of modern investment instruments already place greater emphasis on dispute prevention and amicable resolution, and the emergence of ICSID mediation provides states with an institutional framework through which those objectives can be pursued.

“For investors, this development should not be viewed as weakening investment protection. To the contrary, mediation may become a valuable additional tool. The existence of a credible arbitration mechanism backed by the ICSID enforcement regime provides parties with leverage to negotiate, while mediation offers a structured pathway to preserve investments, maintain commercial relationships, and achieve faster outcomes than would typically be available through a fully contested arbitration.”