93626 THE ICSID CASELOAD – STATISTICS (SPECIAL FOCUS: SOUTH & EAST ASIA & THE PACIFIC) The ICSID Caseload – Statistics (Special Focus: South & East Asia & the Pacific Region) This issue of the ICSID Caseload – Statistics (Special Focus: South & East Asia & the Pacific Region) provides an overview of the ICSID caseload involving States in the South & East Asia & the Pacific region (SEAP or SEAP Region; see Annex 1 for a list of the SEAP Region 1). It is based on ICSID cases registered as of October 1, 2014. This document looks at cases involving a SEAP State as the State Party to an ICSID dispute and illustrates the number of cases registered, the type of cases registered, the basis of consent to ICSID jurisdiction invoked in such cases, the economic sectors involved, and the geographic origin and type of investors involved in such cases. It also contains data on outcomes in arbitration proceedings involving a SEAP State, including further information on disputes decided by tribunals and on settled or discontinued cases. This document further looks at cases involving investors from a SEAP State and illustrates the number of cases registered, the basis of consent to ICSID jurisdiction invoked in such cases, and the economic sectors concerned in disputes involving SEAP investors. It also contains data on outcomes in ICSID arbitration proceedings involving an investor from a SEAP State, including further information on disputes decided by tribunals and on settled or discontinued cases. Finally, this document looks at the geographic origins of arbitrators, conciliators and ad hoc committee members appointed in all ICSID cases, and includes a breakdown of appointments involving nationals from the SEAP region. The analysis considers all ICSID cases involving a SEAP State irrespective of their date of registration. The Secretariat welcomes any comments or suggestions by email at ICSIDsecretariat@worldbank.org. 1 The classification of the SEAP region is based on the World Bank’s regional system, available at http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableselection/selectvariables.aspx?source=world-development-indicators, and also includes World Bank donor countries. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 2 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 1. Map of ICSID Contracting States and Other Signatories to the ICSID Convention (as of October 1, 2014) 5 2. Map of ICSID Contracting States and Other Signatories to the ICSID Convention in the South & East Asia & the Pacific Region (as of October 1, 2014) 7 3. Geographic Distribution of All ICSID Cases, by State Party Involved 7 Chart 1: Geographic Distribution of All Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules, by State Party Involved 7 4. ICSID Cases involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Further Details 8 Chart 2: Number of ICSID Cases involving a State Party from the SEAP Region 8 Chart 3: Type of Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region 9 Chart 4: Basis of Consent Invoked to Establish ICSID Jurisdiction in Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region 10 Chart 5: Distribution of Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region, by Economic Sector 11 Chart 6: Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Geographic Origin of Investors 12 Chart 7: Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Type of Investor 13 Chart 8: Arbitration Proceedings under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Outcomes 14 Chart 8a: Disputes Settled or Proceedings Otherwise Discontinued under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Basis 15 Chart 8b: Disputes Decided by Arbitral Tribunals under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Findings 16 5. ICSID Cases involving Investors with SEAP Nationality – Details 17 Chart 9: All Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules – Geographic Origin of Investor 17 Chart 10: Basis of Consent Invoked to Establish ICSID Jurisdiction in Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving Investors with SEAP Nationality 18 Chart 11: Distribution of Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving Investors with SEAP Nationality, by Economic Sector 19 2 The data is based on ICSID statistics as at October 1, 2014. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 3 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 12: Arbitration Proceedings under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving Investors with SEAP Nationality – Outcomes 20 Chart 12a: Disputes Settled or Proceedings Otherwise Discontinued under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving Investors with SEAP Nationality – Basis 21 Chart 12b: Disputes Decided by Arbitral Tribunals under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving Investors with SEAP Nationality – Findings 21 5. Arbitrators, Conciliators and ad hoc Committee Members Appointed in ICSID Cases 23 Chart 13: Arbitrators, Conciliators and ad hoc Committee Members Appointed in Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules – Distribution of Appointments by ICSID and by the Parties (or Party-appointed Arbitrators) by Geographic Region 23 Chart 14: State of Nationality of Arbitrators, Conciliators and ad hoc Committee Members with SEAP Nationality Appointed in Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules 24 ANNEX 1 – SEAP Region (as of October 1, 2014) 25 ANNEX 2 – List of ICSID Cases involving State Parties in the SEAP Region (as of October 1, 2014) 27 © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 4 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. 1. Map of ICSID Contracting States and Other Signatories to the ICSID Convention (as of October 1, 2014) © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 5 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. 2. Map of ICSID Contracting States and Other Signatories to the ICSID Convention in the South & East Asia & the Pacific Region (as of October 1, 2014) © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 6 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. 3. Geographic Distribution of All ICSID Cases, by State Party Involved* As of October 1, 2014, ICSID had registered 484 cases under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules. Thirty- nine (39) of these cases (8%) involved a State Party from the South & East Asia & the Pacific (SEAP) Region. A list of the SEAP Region is attached as Annex 1. For a complete list of cases registered by ICSID involving a State party from the SEAP Region, see Annex 2. Chart 1: Geographic Distribution of All Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules, by State Party Involved*: North America (Canada, Mexico & U.S.) 5% Eastern Europe & Central Asia Central America & 24% the Caribbean 7% Western Europe 3% South America 27% Sub-Saharan Africa 16% South & East Asia & the Pacific Middle East & 8% North Africa (see chart 2 for 10% number of cases) * The classification of the geographic regions above is based on the World Bank’s regional system, available at http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableselection/selectvariables.aspx?source=world-development-indicators, and also includes World Bank donor countries. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 7 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. 4. ICSID Cases involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Further Details Chart 2: Number of ICSID Cases involving a State Party from the SEAP Region: The chart below lists each SEAP State and the number of cases in which it has been involved as a party to the dispute. A complete list of ICSID cases involving a State Party from the SEAP Region is attached as Annex 2. In addition, procedural details about each case can be found on the ICSID website at www.worldbank.org/icsid. Number of SEAP State ICSID Cases 1. Bangladesh 5 2. Cambodia 1 3. China 1 4. Indonesia 7 5. Korea, Republic of 2 6. Lao People’s Democratic Republic 1 7. Malaysia 3 8. Mongolia 1 9. New Zealand 1 10. Pakistan 8 11. Papua New Guinea 2 12. Philippines 4 13. Sri Lanka 3 © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 8 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 3: Type of Case Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region: Of the 39 ICSID cases involving a SEAP State, 38 were commenced under the ICSID Convention, and 1 was initiated under the Additional Facility Rules. As of October 1, 2014, no conciliation cases had been registered by ICSID involving a State Party from the SEAP Region. 40 38 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 1 0 ICSID Convention Arbitration Cases ICSID Additional Facility Arbitration Cases © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 9 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 4: Basis of Consent Invoked to Establish ICSID Jurisdiction in Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region: Of the 39 ICSID cases involving a SEAP State, the vast majority (63%) asserted ICSID jurisdiction on the basis of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the cases relied on the State’s consent to arbitrate under investment contracts. The remaining 9% of the cases invoked the State’s consent to ICSID jurisdiction in the ASEAN, the Energy Charter Treaty, and investment laws of the Host-State (each 3%). ASEAN Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments 3% Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) 3% Bilateral Investment Investment Law of the Treaty (BIT) Host-State 63% 3% Investment Contract between the Investor and the Host-State 28% © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 10 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 5: Distribution of Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region, by Economic Sector*: The 39 disputes involving a SEAP State arose in the context of a variety of economic sectors. Agriculture, Fishing & Forestry Oil, Gas & Mining 2% 36% Finance 10% Services & Trade 10% Electric Power & Other Energy 13% Transportation 10% Water, Sanitation & Flood Protection Other Industry 3% 5% Construction Tourism 8% 3% * This sector classification is based on the World Bank’s sector codes, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/SectorCodesLists.pdf. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 11 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 6: Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Geographic Origin of Investors 3: In the 39 ICSID cases involving a SEAP State, 9 were commenced by investors who reported SEAP nationality at the time of case registration. The remaining 30 cases were commenced by investors from States outside of the SEAP Region. ICSID Cases involving SEAP State and non- ICSID Cases involving SEAP Investor SEAP State and SEAP 77% Investor 23% 3 The data is based on the nationality of investors as reported at the time of registration. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 12 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 7: Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Type of Investor: Of the 39 ICSID cases involving a SEAP State, 8% were instituted by individual persons (“natural persons”). A further 90% involved juridical persons. (This term refers to legal entities such as corporations, partnerships, or joint ventures, and includes small, medium, and large enterprises.) Juridical person 90% State Entity 2% Natural person 8% © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 13 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 8: Arbitration Proceedings under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region– Outcomes: In the concluded arbitrations involving a SEAP State Party, 48% were settled by the parties or discontinued before a final determination of the tribunal. The basis for settlement or discontinuance is indicated in Chart 8a. The other 52% were resolved by a final award by the tribunal. Where the tribunal rendered a final award, 50% of the awards declined jurisdiction, 21% dismissed all claims, and 29% upheld the claims in part or in full (see Chart 8b). Dispute decided by Dispute settled or Tribunal proceeding otherwise 52% discontinued (see chart 8b for 48% further details) (see chart 8a for further details) © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 14 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 8a: Disputes Settled or Proceedings Otherwise Discontinued under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Basis: Proceeding discontinued at the request of one party1 39% Settlement agreement embodied in an award at parties' request2 15% Proceeding discontinued at the request of both parties3 46% 1 ICSID Arbitration Rule 44. No case concluded to date on the basis of Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rule 50. 2 ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(2). No case concluded to date on the basis of Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rule 49(2). 3 ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1) and Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rule 49(1). © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 15 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 8b: Disputes Decided by Arbitral Tribunals under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving a State Party from the SEAP Region – Findings: Award dismissing all claims Award declining 21% jurisdiction 50% Award upholding claims in part or in full 29% © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 16 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. 5. ICSID Cases involving Investors with SEAP Nationality – Details4 Chart 9: All Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules – Geographic Origin of Investor: Investors with SEAP nationality were involved in 4% of registered ICSID cases as of October 1, 2014. The data is based on the nationality of investors as reported at the time of registration. ICSID cases involving investors with SEAP ICSID cases involving Nationality investors with non-SEAP 4% Nationality 96% 4 The data is based on the nationality of investors as reported at the time of registration. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 17 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 10: Basis of Consent Invoked to Establish ICSID Jurisdiction in Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving Investors with SEAP Nationality: Investors with SEAP nationality relied only on the arbitration mechanism established by the ICSID Convention (100%). Of the ICSID cases involving an investor with SEAP nationality, 51% were based on an ICSID dispute settlement provision in an investment contract between the investor and the Host-State. Thirty-nine percent (39%) asserted ICSID jurisdiction on the basis of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The remaining cases invoked the State’s consent to ICSID jurisdiction in the ASEAN (5%), and the State’s consent found in the investment law of the Host-State (5%). ASEAN Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investment Law of the Investments Host-State 5% 5% Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) 39% Investment Contract between the Investor and the Host-State 51% © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 18 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 11: Distribution of Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving Investors with SEAP Nationality, by Economic Sector*: The disputes involving an investor with SEAP nationality concerned a variety of economic sectors. Oil, Gas & Mining 59% Finance 6% Services & Trade 6% Other Industry 6% Electric Power & Other Energy Construction 11% 12% * This sector classification is based on the World Bank’s sector codes, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/SectorCodesLists.pdf. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 19 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 12: Arbitration Proceedings under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving Investors with SEAP Nationality – Outcomes: In the concluded ICSID arbitrations involving an investor with SEAP nationality, 63% were settled by the parties or discontinued before a final determination of the tribunal. The basis for settlement or discontinuance is indicated in Chart 12a. The other 37% were resolved in a final award issued by the tribunal. Where the tribunal issued a final award, 33% dismissed all claims and 67% upheld the claims in part or in full (see Chart 12b). Dispute settled or proceeding otherwise Dispute decided by discontinued Tribunal 63% 37% (see chart 12a for further (see chart 12b for further details) details) © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 20 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 12a: Disputes Settled or Proceedings Otherwise Discontinued under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving Investors with SEAP Nationality – Basis: Proceeding discontinued at the request of one party1 40% Settlement agreement embodied in an award at parties' request2 20% Proceeding discontinued at the request of both parties3 40% 1 ICSID Arbitration Rule 44. No case concluded to date on the basis of Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rule 50. 2 ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(2). No case concluded to date on the basis of Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rule 49(2). 3 ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1) and Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rule 49(1). © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 21 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 12b: Disputes Decided by Arbitral Tribunals under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules involving Investors with SEAP Nationality – Findings: Award upholding claims in part or in full 67% Award dismissing all claims 33% © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 22 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. 6. Arbitrators, Conciliators and ad hoc Committee Members Appointed in ICSID Cases Chart 13: Arbitrators, Conciliators and ad hoc Committee Members Appointed in Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules – Distribution of Appointments by ICSID and by the Parties (or Party-appointed Arbitrators) by Geographic Region*: In approximately 71% of the appointments made in ICSID cases, the parties select the appointees (indicated in red, below). A number of such appointees are nationals of a SEAP state. The remaining 29% of appointments were made by ICSID (indicated in blue, below). 600 542 500 400 291 300 220 200 125 103 100 69 52 50 45 19 17 26 19 16 17 12 0 North America South America Central America & Middle East & Sub-Saharan Africa South & East Asia & Eastern Europe & Western Europe (Canada, Mexico & the Caribbean North Africa the Pacific Central Asia U.S.) Appointments by ICSID Appointments by the Parties (or Party-appointed Arbitrators) * The classification of the geographic regions above is based on the World Bank’s regional system, available at http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableselection/selectvariables.aspx?source=world-development-indicators, and also includes World Bank donor countries. The chart reflects appointments made to Tribunals and ad hoc Committees constituted until October 1, 2014. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 23 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Chart 14: State of Nationality of Arbitrators, Conciliators and ad hoc Committee Members with SEAP Nationality Appointed in Cases Registered under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules: A number of SEAP nationals served as arbitrators, conciliators or ad hoc Committee members in ICSID cases. In total, about 11% of all appointments made in ICSID cases involved nationals from a SEAP State. Sri Lankan 1 Japanese 1 Korean 3 Malaysian 6 Indian 6 Thai 7 Nationality of Appointee Pakistani 8 Chinese 8 Bangladeshi 9 Philippine 10 Canadian/New Zealand 10 Singaporean 11 New Zealand 35 Australian 57 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of Appointments © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 24 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. ANNEX 1 – SEAP Region (as of October 1, 2014) 5 SIGNATURE ENTRY INTO FORCE Afghanistan Sep. 30, 1966 July 25, 1968 American Samoa Australia Mar. 24, 1975 June 1, 1991 Bangladesh Nov. 20, 1979 Apr. 26, 1980 Bhutan Brunei Darussalam Sep. 16, 2002 Oct. 16, 2002 Cambodia Nov. 5, 1993 Jan. 19, 2005 China Feb. 9, 1990 Feb. 6, 1993 Fiji July 1, 1977 Sep. 10, 1977 French Polynesia Guam Hong Kong SAR, China India Indonesia Feb. 16, 1968 Oct. 28, 1968 Japan Sep. 23, 1965 Sep. 16, 1967 Kiribati Korea, Democratic Republic of Korea, Republic of Apr. 18, 1966 Mar. 23, 1967 Lao PDR Macao SAR, China Malaysia Oct. 22, 1965 Oct. 14, 1966 Maldives Marshall Islands Micronesia, Federated States of June 24, 1993 July 24, 1993 Mongolia June 14, 1991 July 14, 1991 5 The classification of the SEAP region is based on the World Bank’s regional system, available at http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableselection/selectvariables.aspx?source=world-development-indicators, and also includes World Bank donor countries. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 25 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. SIGNATURE ENTRY INTO FORCE Myanmar Nepal Sep. 28, 1965 Feb. 6, 1969 New Caledonia New Zealand Sep. 2, 1970 May 2, 1980 Northern Mariana Islands Pakistan July 6, 1965 Oct. 15, 1966 Palau Papua New Guinea Oct. 20, 1978 Nov. 19, 1978 Philippines Sep. 26, 1978 Dec. 17, 1978 Samoa Feb. 3, 1978 May 25, 1978 Singapore Feb. 2, 1968 Nov. 13, 1968 Solomon Islands Nov. 12, 1979 Oct. 8, 1981 Sri Lanka Aug. 30, 1967 Nov. 11, 1967 Taiwan Thailand Dec. 6, 1985 Timor-Leste July 23, 2002 Aug. 22, 2002 Tonga May 1, 1989 Apr. 20, 1990 Tuvalu Vanuatu Vietnam © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 26 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. ANNEX 2 – List of ICSID Cases involving State Parties in the SEAP Region (as of October 1, 2014) Case No. Claimant(s) Respondent Case Status ARB/81/1 Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia CONCLDUED 1. Colt Industries Operating ARB/84/2 v. Republic of Korea CONCLDUED 2. Corporation ARB/87/2 Mobil Oil Corporation and others v. New Zealand CONCLDUED 3. ARB/87/3 Asian Agricultural Products Limited v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka CONCLDUED 4. ARB/87/4 Occidental of Pakistan, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan CONCLDUED 5. Bangladesh and Bangladesh Oil, Gas and ARB/92/2 Scimitar Exploration Limited v. CONCLDUED 6. Mineral Corporation ARB/94/1 Philippe Gruslin v. Malaysia CONCLDUED 7. ARB/96/2 Misima Mines Pty. Ltd. v. Independent State of Papua New Guinea CONCLDUED 8. ARB/99/3 Philippe Gruslin v. Malaysia CONCLDUED 9. ARB/00/2 Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka CONCLDUED 10. SGS Société Générale de ARB/01/13 v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan CONCLDUED 11. Surveillance S.A. ARB/02/2 Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan CONCLDUED 12. SGS Société Générale de ARB/02/6 v. Republic of the Philippines CONCLDUED 13. Surveillance S.A. ARB/03/3 Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan CONCLDUED 14. Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport ARB/03/25 v. Republic of the Philippines CONCLDUED 15. Services Worldwide Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve ARB/03/29 v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan CONCLDUED 16. Sanayi A.S. ARB/04/3 Cemex Asia Holdings Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia CONCLDUED 17. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 27 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Case No. Claimant(s) Respondent Case Status Alstom Power Italia SpA and ARB/04/10 v. Republic of Mongolia CONCLDUED 18. Alstom SpA ARB/05/7 Saipem S.p.A. v. People's Republic of Bangladesh CONCLDUED 19. Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, ARB/05/10 v. Malaysia CONCLDUED 20. BHD Chevron Bangladesh Block Twelve, ARB/06/10 Ltd. and Chevron Bangladesh v. People's Republic of Bangladesh CONCLDUED 21. Blocks Thirteen and Fourteen, Ltd. Government of the Province of ARB/07/3 v. PT Kaltim Prima Coal and others CONCLDUED 22. East Kalimantan ARB/09/2 Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka PENDING 23. ARB/09/18 Cambodia Power Company v. Kingdom of Cambodia CONCLDUED 24. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited ("Bapex") ARB/10/11 Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. PENDING 25. and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration and Production Company Limited ("Bapex") ARB/10/18 Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. PENDING 26. and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation ("Petrobangla") Agility for Public Warehousing ARB/11/8 v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PENDING 27. Company K.S.C. Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport ARB/11/12 v. Republic of the Philippines PENDING 28. Services Worldwide ARB/11/13 Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia PENDING 29. ARB/11/15 Ekran Berhad v. People's Republic of China CONCLDUED 30. Baggerwerken Decloedt En Zoon ARB/11/27 v. Republic of the Philippines PENDING 31. NV Tethyan Copper Company Pty ARB/12/1 v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PENDING 32. Limited ARB/12/14 Churchill Mining PLC v. Republic of Indonesia PENDING 33. © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 28 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement. Case No. Claimant(s) Respondent Case Status ARB(AF)/12/6 Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic PENDING 34. ARB/12/37 LSF-KEB Holdings SCA and others v. Republic of Korea PENDING 35. ARB/12/40 Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia PENDING 36. Karkey Karadeniz Elektrik Uretim ARB/13/1 v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PENDING 37. A.S. PNG Sustainable Development ARB/13/33 v. Independent State of Papua New Guinea PENDING 38. Program Ltd. Nusa Tenggara Partnership B.V. ARB/14/15 v. Republic of Indonesia CONCLDUED 39. and PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara © 2014 by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Page | 29 Content may be reproduced for educational use with acknowledgement.