This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
HOW AFRICA HAS FARED IN INVESTMENT DISPUTES. A REALITY CHECK.
By Karel Daele
“Striking the Legitimate Balance between Host-State Sovereignty and Investor Needs: Perspectives from and regarding Africa” Panel
“Enhancing Business Opportunities in Africa: The Role, Reality and Future of Africa-Related Arbitration”, Atlanta International Arbitration Society Conference
• While Africa accounts for 28% of ICSID’s membership, it accounts for 23% of its disputes: 113 disputes on a total of 487
• 70% of the Contracting States (32) have been respondent to one or more ICSID cases
• 30% of the Contracting States (13) have not been respondent: Benin, Botswana, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Sao Tome & Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland and Zambia
• South Africa and Equatorial Guinea (non-Contracting States) have been respondent to ICSID Additional Facility proceedings
Once (8): Burundi, Gabon, Guinea, Liberia, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo and Zimbabwe
Twice (3): Central African Republic, Congo Republic and Tanzania
On three occasions (1): Egypt
• Sixteen States (34%) have been respondent but not found liable (either because the claims were settled, rejected or discontinued): Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, DRC, Gambia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa and Tunisia;
• Damages exceeding 100 million (1): Chemin de Fer v Gabon (160)
• Damages 50 to 100 million (2): Waguih v Egypt (74.5); Siag v Egypt (settled; 74)
• Damages 10 to 50 million (4): Togo Electr v Togo (39); Southern Pacific v Egypt (settled; 22.5); Wena Hotel v Egypt (19.5); AGIP v Rep. Congo (12)
• Damages 5 to 10 million (5): American Manufacturing v Egypt (9); Funnekotter v Zimbabwe (8); Liberian Timber v Liberia (8); CDC v Seychelles (6.7) ; AHS Niger v Niger (5.8)
• Damages 1 to 5 million (3): Middle East Cement v Egypt (3.9); Lahoud v DRC (1.7); Goetz v Burundi I (1.2);
• Damages 0 to 1 million (5) : SOABI v Senegal (0.6); Atlantic Triton v Guinea (0.3); Benvenuti v Rep Congo (0.1); RSM v CAR (0.02); Biwater v Tanzania (0)
9. DAMAGES AWARDED (USD)2-3 NOVEMBER 2014 - ATLANTA
• Over 75% of the claim awarded (2): CDC v Seychelles (100%); Togo Electr v Togo (95%)
• Over 50% of the claim awarded (1): Funnekotter v Zimbabwe (70%)
• Over 25% of the claim awarded (5): American Manufacturing v Egypt (42%); Atlantic Triton v Guinea (35%); Waguih v Egypt (34%); Siag v Egypt (settled; 34%); Wena Hotel v Egypt (30%)
• Less than 25% of the claim awarded (7): Southern Pacific v Egypt (settled; 18%); Middle East Cement v Egypt (8%); Lahoud v DRC (8%); Goetz v Burundi I (5%); SOABI v Senegal (14%); RSM v CAR (0.0002%); Biwater v Tanzania (0%)
10. RATE OF SUCCESS (USD)2-3 NOVEMBER 2014 - ATLANTA