1. KEY ISSUES IN INVESTOR- STATE ARBITRATION Lessons for a Young Practitioner Presented by Isaiah Bozimo, FCIArb

2. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 2 The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) recently published in annual snapshot of known arbitration claims under international investment treaties - the World Investment Report 2015. Chapter III of the Report gives some new and insightful data on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases - who wins more, Investors or States? Who Wins More, Investors or States? ISDS World Investment Report 2015 (WIR) FDI $1.23 trillion IIAs 3,268 International Investment Agreements ISDS 608 Known Cases (1987-2014)

3. Settled 105 cases were settled. 405 In 8 cases, a treaty breach was found but no monetary compensation was awarded to the investor CONCLUDED CASES In favour of Investor 111 cases ended in favour of the Investor. In favour of State Out of the overall concluded cases in 2014, 144 were decided in favour of the State. Breach but no damages 26 % 27 % 2%2% 36 % ISDS OUTCOMES IN 2014 UNCTAD 3 Discontinued 37 cases were discontinued for reasons other than settlement (or for unknown reasons) 9%9%

4. Most observers acknowledge that States never actually “win”; they only do not lose. 4 One key caveat is that UNCTAD is only able to report statistics for “known” cases. This creates a methodological problem for the statistical analysis of non-ICSID cases. Unlike ICSID cases, non-ICSID cases are, for the time being, not subject to any specific reporting or transparency framework. UNCTAD’s methodology amalgamates decisions on jurisdiction with decisions on the merit. The 144 cases decided in favour of States include all claims, either dismissed on jurisdictional grounds or dismissed on the merits. From the statistics, tribunals rendered final awards in 255 cases (144 in favour of States + 111 in favour of Investors). Out of the 255 cases in which final awards were given, 71 were dismissed by tribunals for lack of jurisdiction. Taking out the 71 jurisdictional decisions that terminated the arbitrations, 184 cases were decided on the merits. Do States really “win” more than Investors? ISDS Looking into the Substance behind the Statistics

5. Assuming all arbitrations faced a jurisdictional challenge, States “won” 28% (71 cases). In favour of States Assuming all arbitrations faced a jurisdictional challenge, Investors won 72% (184 cases). In favour of Investors 72 % of jurisdictional decisions in favour of Investors DECISIONS ON JURISDICTION UNCTAD 5 255 Cases

6. States “won” 73 or 40% of cases decided on the merit. In favour of States Investors won 111 (or 60% of cases decided on the merit. In favour of Investors 60 % of decisions on the merit in favour of Investors DECISIONS ON THE MERIT UNCTAD 6 184 Cases

7. Low Barriers to EntryHigh Win Rates Why the distinction between jurisdiction & merits matters 7 60% Probability of winning decision on the merits 72% Probability of winning decision on jurisdiction. If it is relatively easy to reach the merits phase, it will be worth filing an investment claim even if jurisdiction is unclear. If the win rate on the merits is high, investors may be more willing to take a chance at jurisdiction, even if the case is weak on that issue. The combination of law barriers to entry and high win rates may motivate investors and third party funders to initiate more cases.

8. ‹#›8 In the proper context, the UNCTAD data suggests that investors won 72% in of the decisions on jurisdiction, and 60% of the cases decided on the merits in the year 2014. Statistical analysis of investment treaty claims provides a very useful tool for policy makers, investors and States respondent to arbitral proceedings. However, the data must be read with caution. The UNCTAD report only gives the statistics for known cases. It may be years before details of cases filed and/or concluded in 2014 begin to surface, if indeed they ever do. There is no conclusive evidence that the investment arbitration system is biased against either investors or States. The balance in the ISDS system cannot be measured by wins and losses alone. Other significant factors are often involved. But with these new numbers, at least it can no longer be said, simplistically, that the system is balanced because States win more than investors—they clearly do not when comparing the proper numbers. Conclusions WHO WINS MORE, INVESTORS OR STATES?

9. ‹#› Thank you for listening Isaiah Bozimo Deputy Head of Chambers Ikwueto - A Registered Law Firm ikb@ikwueto.net