{"id":280834,"date":"2024-04-13T18:09:25","date_gmt":"2024-04-13T16:09:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=280834"},"modified":"2024-03-14T18:09:49","modified_gmt":"2024-03-14T17:09:49","slug":"construction-and-investment-arbitration-trends-turkiye-central-asia-and-mena","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2024\/04\/13\/construction-and-investment-arbitration-trends-turkiye-central-asia-and-mena\/","title":{"rendered":"Construction and Investment Arbitration Trends \u2013 Tu\u0308rkiye, Central Asia, and MENA"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

This article was featured in our 2023 Construction Arbitration Report, which is part of a series of industry-focused arbitration reports<\/strong><\/a> edited by Jus Connect<\/a><\/strong> and Jus Mundi<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This issue explores the construction industry and presents a goldmine of information based on data available on Jus Mundi<\/a> and Jus Connect <\/a>as of May 2023<\/strong>. Discover updated insights into construction arbitration and exclusive statistics & rankings, as well as in-depth global and regional perspectives on construction projects, disputes, & arbitration from leading lawyers, arbitrators, experts, arbitral institutions, and in-house counsel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download it now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHORS:<\/strong>
Diora Ziyaeva<\/strong><\/a>, Partner at Dentons<\/strong><\/a>
Dogan Eymirlioglu<\/strong><\/a>, Partner at BASEAK <\/a>(Dentons<\/a> local partnership)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Over the past two decades, T\u00fcrkiye<\/a>, in addition to Central Asia as a whole and the Middle East and North Africa (\u201cMENA\u201d) region, has seen an influx in investment arbitration relating to cross-borders construction projects. This article will analyze the trends apparent in these investment arbitrations, as well as provide guidance to investors in the regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

General Trends<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To understand the trends in investment arbitration in T\u00fcrkiye<\/a>, and more broadly throughout the Central Asian and MENA regions, it is important to examine the types of disputes being brought and the relevant countries involved. T\u00fcrkiye has itself been a Respondent in eighteen investment arbitrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Out of the thirteen cases that have concluded, nine were decided in favor of the State, one decided in favor of the investor, and three settled or dis- continued. There have been four cases involving construction projects in which T\u00fcrkiye was the Respondent, arising out of the: (1) Turkey-United<\/a> States BIT<\/a>; (2) Energy Charter Treaty<\/a>; (3) Netherlands-Turkey BIT<\/a>; and (4) Austria-Turkey BIT<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T\u00fcrkiye has been the home state of the Claimant in forty-eight investment arbitrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Of the thirty-four cases that have concluded, twelve were decided in favor of the State, ten decided in favor of the investor, and twelve settled or discontinued. Nearly half of these cases \u2013 twenty in total \u2013 involved construction projects. Similarly, Turkish companies have brought investment arbitrations against a number of states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The construction-specific cases in which Turkish investors were Claim- ants have arisen out of the: (1) Pakistan-Turkey BIT<\/a>; (2) Libya-Turkey BIT<\/a>; (3) OIC Investment Agreement<\/a>; (4) Turkey-Turkmenistan BIT<\/a>; (5) Saudi<\/a> Arabia-Turkey BIT<\/a>; (6) Azerbaijan-Turkey BIT<\/a>; (7) Oman-Turkey BIT<\/a>; (8) Jordan-Turkey BIT<\/a>; and (9) Georgia-Turkey BIT<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turkmenistan <\/a>has been the most common adversary in these proceed- ings, appearing as the Respondent State in at least nine arbitrations of construction disputes with Turkish investors to date. Libya <\/a>has appeared as the Respondent state in multiple arbitrations of construction disputes with Turkish investors as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, other states in the Central Asian region have been involved in a number of investment arbitrations. Turkmenistan has been the Respon- dent state in sixteen investment arbitrations, the vast majority of which have involved construction projects. Kyrgyzstan <\/a>has been the Respon- dent State in eighteen investment arbitrations, several of which involved construction projects. Kazakhstan <\/a>has been the Respondent State in nineteen investment arbitrations while it has also been the home State of the Claimant in six other investment arbitrations. Uzbekistan <\/a>has been the Respondent State in nine investment arbitrations and the home State of the Claimant in one other. By contrast, Tajikistan <\/a>has only been the Respondent State in two investment arbitrations, neither of which involving a construction project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Central Asian region is not alone in consistently utilizing investment arbitrations. Dozens more investment arbitrations have been initiated against or on behalf of States in the MENA region. In fact, the MENA region has represented roughly 19% of ICC cases <\/a>filed in recent years \u2013 as well as 9% of recent ICSID cases<\/a>. A number of these arbitrations have involved substantial awards<\/a>. For example, a Spanish company prevailed before an ICSID tribunal on a $2 billion USD claim against Egypt in 2018 (See, <\/em>Uni\u00f3n Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt<\/em><\/a>, ICSID Case No. ARB\/14\/4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The increase in investment arbitration participation in T\u00fcrkiye should come as no surprise as the State has consistently expanded its number of relevant treaties. Just in the last five years, T\u00fcrkiye has signed an addi- tional eight bilateral investment treaties, in addition to free trade agree- ments with the U.K. and E.U.<\/p>\n\n\n\n