THE AUTHOR:<\/strong> In Colombia<\/a>, arbitration is governed by Law 1563 of 2012 (the \u201cArbitration Statute<\/strong>\u201d), which is inspired by the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985)<\/a>. This framework adopts a dualist approach, clearly distinguishing between domestic and international arbitration. In 2024, several significant legislative initiatives were debated, and noteworthy developments emerged in the international, institutional, and even judicial areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several key decisions and announcements concerning international investment were made during 2024:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a notable decision, the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia rejected the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID Additional Facility award<\/a>` rendered in favor of the Investor in Rusoro Mining v. Venezuela<\/em> (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)\/12\/5). On June 20, 2024<\/a>, the Court held that the rules governing sovereign immunity<\/a> prevail in the enforcement of awards against foreign States. Therefore, in the absence of an express waiver of immunity by Venezuela<\/a>, the award could not be recognized or enforced in Colombia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Arbitration and Conciliation Center of the Bogot\u00e1 Chamber of Commerce (CAC-CCB<\/strong>)<\/a> issued a set of new directives regarding international arbitration proceedings<\/strong>. Directive 011 set out procedural guidelines for the administration of such cases, including rules for communication between the parties, the tribunal, and the institution, as well as logistics for hearings, submissions, and deadlines. Directive 012 clarified the criteria used by the Center when appointing arbitrators. Meanwhile, Directive 013 formally recognized the role of tribunal assistants in international arbitration, allowing arbitrators to receive additional procedural support beyond the services already provided by the CCB\u2019s Secretariat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, several arbitral awards were rendered in investment disputes involving the Republic of Colombia. While some of these rulings were unfavorable to the State, others upheld the legitimacy of its regulatory measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2017, Telef\u00f3nica\u2019s Colombian subsidiary was ordered by local courts to pay EUR 462.5 million in connection with the reversion of assets linked to mobile telephony concessions. Telef\u00f3nica claimed that these decisions violated the Colombia\u2013Spain BIT (2005)<\/a> and filed for arbitration before ICSID. On 12 November 2024, the tribunal found that Colombia had breached the Fair and Equitable Treatment<\/a> (\u201cFET<\/strong>\u201d) standard and ordered the State to pay approximately USD 380 million, plus interest and legal costs. Colombia has initiated annulment proceedings<\/a>, and the enforcement of the award is currently stayed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Canadian company Eco Oro initiated arbitration against Colombia due to environmental restrictions that hindered its mining project. In an earlier partial award<\/a>, the tribunal found that Colombia had violated the Minimum Standard of Treatment<\/a> (\u201cMST<\/strong>\u201d). However, in the damages phase<\/a> concluded on 15 July 2024, the tribunal held that the measures did not fully deprive the investor of its investment and that damages were not sufficiently proven. As a result, no compensation was awarded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a similar case, the claim arose from the prohibition on mining activities in p\u00e1ramo ecosystems, which affected the \u201cReina de Oro\u201d project. On 7 June 2024<\/a>, the tribunal found that Colombia had acted reasonably and in good faith in protecting the environment, and dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding no expropriation<\/a> or breach of FET.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The claimant alleged that Colombia had unjustifiably altered the terms of its mining titles in the Santurb\u00e1n region. On 28 February 2024<\/a>, the majority of the tribunal rejected all claims, holding that there had been no expropriation and no violation of the MST.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S.-based company filed arbitration following the non-renewal of its contract to administer Colombia\u2019s domain \u201c.CO\u201d. On 20 September 2024<\/a>, the tribunal dismissed all claims, concluding that Colombia had not breached its obligations under the Colombia\u2013U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Multiple U.S. companies initiated arbitration in connection with consulting services related to the upgrade of the Cartagena Refinery. The award, rendered on 19 December 2024<\/a>, declared all claims inadmissible for having been brought prematurely, finding no evidence of a treaty breach at the time the request for arbitration was filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Australian mining company South32 alleged violations of legal certainty concerning its investment, stemming from sanctions imposed by the Office of the Comptroller General following a fiscal liability investigation. The company claimed approximately USD 94 million. On 21 June 2024<\/a>, the tribunal found Colombia in breach of the applicable BIT and ordered compensation in the amount of USD 9.5 million.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CB&I UK Limited initiated arbitration over contractual disputes regarding works performed at the Cartagena Refinery. The proceedings were discontinued by mutual agreement and formally closed on 30 April 2024<\/a> without a ruling on the merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to the awards rendered, several new arbitrations were initiated during 2024 and early 2025. These include claims brought by Continental <\/a>\u00a0in the mining sector, as well as more recent proceedings initiated by Centauro and Natanor, <\/a>\u00a0and Maritime Archaeology Consultants<\/a>. The development of these cases will be key in assessing Colombia\u2019s evolving strategy in international arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The year 2025 is shaping up to be a decisive period for Colombia<\/a> in the field of international arbitration. The accumulation of recent awards, along with the initiation of new proceedings, confirms that the country remains at the center of discussions concerning the balance between the protection of foreign investment and the State\u2019s right to regulate in the public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this context, the Colombian government\u2019s announced review of investment treaty arbitration clauses could mark a turning point in the State\u2019s international legal policy. The decisions taken regarding treaty reform, international defense strategies, and institutional arbitration frameworks will not only affect Colombia\u2019s legal certainty but also its ability to build a development model that is sustainable, coherent, and resilient to global legal challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That said, a review of the awards issued in 2024 does not reveal a consistent trend of unfavorable rulings against Colombia. On the contrary, in several proceedings, arbitral tribunals upheld the legitimacy of the State\u2019s regulatory measures and dismissed investors\u2019 claims. This raises the question of whether structural reform of Colombia\u2019s investment framework should be driven by an adverse ruling, such as Telef\u00f3nica, or whether a broader assessment based on cumulative evidence and long-term strategic analysis would be more appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Nicol\u00e1s Rosero Espinosa <\/strong>is a Senior Associate at Baker McKenzie<\/strong><\/a> (Lima), with solid experience in international arbitration \u2014investment, commercial, and sports\u2014 in complex disputes and highly regulated sectors. He has acted as counsel in proceedings under ICSID<\/a>, ICC<\/a>, UNCITRAL<\/a>, and before leading arbitral institutions across Latin American. He is listed as an arbitrator in regional arbitral institutions and has actively participated as a lecturer, speaker, and author in arbitration-related matters. He holds legal training from Colombia and Spain, and serves on the board of directors of Colombia Very Young Arbitration Practitioners (\u201cCOLVYAP<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2024 from around the world now<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nicol\u00e1s Rosero Espinosa<\/strong>, Senior Associate at Baker McKenzie<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nKey Legal and Institutional Developments<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legislative Developments<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
International Developments<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Judicial Developments<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Institutional Developments<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Arbitral Awards Involving Colombia in 2024<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Telef\u00f3nica v. Colombia<\/em><\/a> (ICSID Case No. ARB\/18\/3)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Eco Oro v. Colombia<\/em><\/strong><\/a> <\/em>(ICSID Case No. ARB\/16\/41)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Montauk Meta<\/em><\/strong>ls (formerly Galway Gold) v. Colombia<\/strong><\/em><\/a> (ICSID Case No. ARB\/18\/13)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Red Eagle Exploration v. Colombia<\/em><\/a> (ICSID Case No. ARB\/18\/12)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Vercara v. Colombia<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (ICSID Case No. ARB\/20\/7)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Amec Foster Wheeler v. Colombia<\/em><\/a> (ICSID Case No. ARB\/19\/34)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
South32 v. Colombia<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (ICSID Case No. ARB\/20\/9)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
CB&I v. Colombia<\/em><\/a> (ICSID Case No. ARB\/22\/11)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
From 2024 Lessons to 2025 Challenges<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n