The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) recently published its latest bi-annual caseload statistics: ICSID Caseload – Statistics Issue 2025-1. The document sets out an analysis for the 2024 calendar year compared to statistics since the first ICSID case was registered in 1972.

Alejandro Garcia and Joao Bofill comment on this document and offer insight into the trends arising from ICSID’s statistics.

New cases registered

As of 31 December 2024, ICSID had registered 1,022 arbitration and conciliation cases under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules. In 2024, 53 new ICSID Convention arbitrations and two Additional Facility arbitrations were registered, two fewer than in 2023. The highest annual registration remains 2021, with 66 cases.

Conciliation proceedings remain rare, with only 14 cases (1.4%) registered historically: 12 under the ICSID Convention and two under the Additional Facility Rules.

Basis of consent

In 2024, bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”) remained the primary basis of consent for ICSID jurisdiction, accounting for 52% of cases, followed by the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”) at 14%, specific agreements between host states and investors at 14%. Other sources for consent were local investment laws at 5% and free trade agreements, such as the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement at 5% and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership at 4%.

Since 1972, BITs have accounted for 58% of the cases filed at ICSID, specific agreements between an investor and a state for 15%, the ECT for 10%, investment laws for 7%, the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) for 4%, other treaties for 6%, and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) and the CAFTA-DR for 1% each.

Geographic distribution

In 2024, the region that saw the most registered cases was Latin America (Mexico, Central and South America), with 21 new disputes accounting for 38% of ICSID’s disputes registered last year. Eastern Europe and Central Asia came second with 13 cases (24% of ICSID’s cases registered in 2024). Then Sub-Saharan Africa with nine cases (16%) and Western Europe with six (11%). The Middle East and North Africa saw two new cases (4%). South and East Asia and the Pacific also saw two cases (4%). In the Caribbean, only one case was registered, i.e., a claim against Trinidad and Tobago. No cases were registered against the US in 2024.

These percentages are broadly consistent with historical data, with Latin American countries facing most claims filed at ICSID since 1972.

In terms of specific countries, the States that saw most new cases filed at ICSID in 2024 were Honduras (five), Mexico (four), Peru (four) and Panama (three). Colombia, Uruguay, Poland, Ukraine, Finland and Spain faced two cases each.

Economic sectors involved

The economic sectors of the disputes brought before ICSID in 2024, following ICSID’s categorisation, were distributed as follows:

• Oil, gas and mining (38%)
• Electric power and other energy (24%)
• Other industry (13%)
• Transportation (11%)
• Construction (5%)
• Finance (5%)

Since 1972, oil, gas and mining have accounted for 25% of ICSID cases, followed by electric power and other energy (17%), other industry (11%), construction (10%), transportation (9%) and finance (8%).

Dispute outcomes

Out of the cases that concluded in 2024, 78% of them were decided by arbitral tribunals, with the remainder either amicably settled or discontinued. Historically, 66% of cases have reached arbitral decisions. Below we set out a table comparing the outcome of cases decided in 2024 with historical data.

The table below sets provides further detail on cases amicably settled or discontinued, including historical data.

Arbitrator appointments: regional origin, specific nationalities and gender

Regional origin

The table below sets out the regional origin based on the nationality of the arbitrators appointed in ICSID proceedings in 2024 and compares that information with historical data.

Nationalities

• In 2024, the most appointments went to arbitrators from the United Kingdom and the United States (16 each), followed by France (14), Canada (13) and Spain (10).
• Historically, the most frequently appointed arbitrators have been from the United States (342), France (331), the United Kingdom (296), Canada (194) and Switzerland (169).

Gender representation

In 2024, 25% of appointed arbitrators were women, up from 16% of the accumulated ICSID registered cases.

Notably, the ICSID Secretariat continues to contribute more to gender-diverse appointments than parties. In 2024, claimants appointed 53 male arbitrators and only six female arbitrators, while respondents appointed 48 male arbitrators and nine females. In contrast, during the same period, ICSID appointed 35 men and 26 women. In addition, only 10% of all ICSID appointees were appointed for the first time.

Comment

The ICSID Caseload – Statistics 2025 highlights key trends in investor-State dispute settlement, confirming the continued predominance of BITs as the primary basis for consent and the concentration of cases in specific regions (in particular, Latin America and Eastern Europe and Central Asia) and industries (oil, gas and mining and electric power and energy). Energy-related arbitrations are expected to continue rising, as the effects of recent treaty withdrawals (such as the US from the Paris Agreement) and the roll out of subsidies and financial cuts on renewable energy investments in a number of countries may trigger investment-treaty disputes.

The outcomes of arbitration proceedings in 2024 remain largely consistent with past trends, in particular that the win rate for investors and States is virtually split in the middle.

The statistics also reveal slow progress in diversity in arbitrator appointments despite an increased focus on inclusivity. The disparity highlights the need for parties to give greater consideration to gender diversity in their appointments and consider first-time appointees. ICSID’s statistics seem to suggest that counsel tend to seek predictability in arbitrator selection, often reverting to those previously appointed, typically men from western countries. This creates a Catch-22 situation: counsel rarely recommend the appoint of arbitrators that have not sat in that capacity before. In these circumstances, the role of arbitral institutions cannot be overemphasised: facing limited party pressure, they are the ones better suited to make first appointments that can ensure diversity.

Further, arbitrators from specific regions are underrepresented. For example, although African countries are involved in numerous ICSID proceedings, the number of African arbitrator appointments is relatively low. Similarly, despite India’s increasing economic importance and population, Indian arbitrators have received only six ICSID appointments since 1972. More could and should be done to secure more regional diversity. Some initiatives, such as the India Promise, aim to deal with issues of regional underrepresentation.

You can find further information regarding our expertise, experience and team on our International Arbitration page.

If you require assistance from our team, please contact us.

Subscribe – In order to receive our news straight to your inbox, subscribe here. Our newsletters are sent no more than once a month.