{"id":291039,"date":"2026-06-06T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=291039"},"modified":"2026-06-09T11:06:28","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T09:06:28","slug":"2025-arbitration-year-in-review-guatemala","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/06\/2025-arbitration-year-in-review-guatemala\/","title":{"rendered":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review – Guatemala"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

This article was featured in Jus Mundi<\/a>‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

THE AUTHORS:<\/strong>
David Enriquez<\/strong>, International Arbitration Member, ECIJA<\/a><\/strong>
Sof\u00eda Galindo<\/a><\/strong>, Associate, Adell & Merizalde<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

This year was particularly relevant for arbitration in <\/em>Guatemala<\/em><\/a>. Two investment arbitration cases were filed; local courts issued key decisions which have impacted the local framework for commercial and investment arbitrations; sectors prone to arbitration disputes had major developments; and local arbitral institutions contributed to the improvement of the arbitral landscape in the country. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Investment Treaty Case Development<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Within the context of investor-State dispute resolution, three major cases saw developments in 2025: Energ\u00eda y Renovaci\u00f3n Holding, S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala<\/em>, ICSID Case No. ARB\/21\/56<\/a> (\u201cEnerg\u00eda y Renovaci\u00f3n<\/em><\/strong>\u201d), Grupo Energ\u00eda Bogot\u00e1 S.A. E.S.P. & Transportadora de Energ\u00eda de Centroam\u00e9rica S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala (I)<\/em>, ICSID Case No. ARB\/20\/4.<\/a> (\u201cGEB & TRECSA<\/em><\/strong>\u201d) and Daniel W. Kappes and Kappes, Cassiday & Associates v. Republic of Guatemala<\/em>, ICSID Case No. ARB\/18\/43<\/a>. (\u201cDaniel W. Kappes\u201d)<\/em><\/strong>. In Energ\u00eda y Renovaci\u00f3n<\/em>, the Tribunal issued a final award holding Guatemala internationally responsible for breaching the 2002 Central America-Panama Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In GEB & TRECSA<\/em>, a decision on jurisdiction was issued, and hearings on jurisdiction, merits and quantum were held. Finally, in Daniel W. Kappes<\/em> the Tribunal issued an award, dismissing all claims and upholding that Guatemala did not breach the 2002 Central America-Panama Free Trade Agreement (\u201cCAFTA\u201d)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Energ\u00eda y Renovaci\u00f3n Holding, S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB\/21\/56<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The dispute in Energ\u00eda y Renovaci\u00f3n Holding, S.A. v. Guatemala<\/a><\/em> arose from alleged failures by the Guatemalan State to protect the investor\u2019s hydroelectric projects, licenses, permits, and shares in its domestic subsidiaries. According to the claimant, Guatemala failed to answer adequately to repeated violent incidents by local indigenous communities, including attacks, threats, and damage to equipment, which caused delays and increased project costs. The investor initiated the arbitration under the CAFTA, claiming breaches to the full range of standards for protection for foreign investments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guatemala opposed the investor\u2019s claims and challenged the tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction on ratione materiae <\/em>and personae <\/em>grounds including by arguing that the investment was illegal because its domestic laws prohibit foreigners from owning real estate within the country\u2019s borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Tribunal issued an Award<\/a> on March 31, 2025. The majority of the Tribunal rejected Guatemala\u2019s jurisdictional challenges, considering them to be circular. On the merits, the Majority held Guatemala liable for failing to protect the investor\u2019s hydroelectric projects from persistent social unrest and community hostility, awarding approximately US $64.5 million in damages and costs. The Tribunal found that Guatemala\u2019s failure to exercise vigilance and due diligence constituted a breach to the CAFTA. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prof. Raul E. Vinuesa<\/a> issued a dissenting opinion<\/a>, where he expressed his disagreement on the legality of the investment, the statute of limitations, and the quantum of damages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

October 24, 2025, Guatemala filed an application for annulment under Article 52 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965)<\/a> (\u201cICSID Convention<\/a>\u201d). The annulment proceedings<\/a> are currently ongoing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grupo Energ\u00eda Bogot\u00e1 S.A. E.S.P. & Transportadora de Energ\u00eda de Centroam\u00e9rica S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala (I), ICSID Case No. ARB\/20\/48<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

GEB & TRECSA initiated ICSID proceedings against Guatemala under the Colombia\u2013Guatemala\u2013El Salvador\u2013Honduras Free Trade Agreement (2007)<\/a>, claiming that Guatemala violated treaty protections in relation to a large electricity-transmission project. The dispute centers on the alleged failure by Guatemala to comply with its contractual obligations, particularly with respect to force majeure provisions and the delayed issuance of authorizations for the project\u2019s construction. These setbacks, according to the claimants, caused substantial delays and additional costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guatemala raised four preliminary objections, arguing that claims were time-barred, that parallel proceedings are ongoing before Guatemalan domestic courts, and that the challenged measures did not constitute treaty breaches. In a November 24, 2023, decision<\/a>, the tribunal rejected most of the jurisdictional objections, but upheld Guatemala\u2019s objection to investor\u2019s use of several umbrella-clauses from other treaties via the FTA\u2019s Most Favoured Nation<\/a> (\u201cMFN<\/strong>\u201d) clause, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over those.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2025, from July 07 to July 12, a hearing<\/a> on jurisdiction, merits, and quantum took place.. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Daniel W. Kappes and Kappes, Cassiday & Associates v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB\/18\/43<\/a>.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Daniel Kappes initiated arbitration proceedings against Guatemala arguing the breach of the Minimum Standard of Treatment<\/a> (\u201cMST\u201d) and protection against expropriation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2025, the Tribunal issued a historic decision declining to award damages for suspension of the investor\u2019s mining license pending community consultations under the the ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (\u201cConvention No. 169\u201d). This decision, uncommon in investment arbitration, granted Guatemala a clear victory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Key Local Court Decisions Impacting International Arbitration<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In 2025, Guatemalan courts issued two decisions relevant to the local arbitration framework. The first concerns a new law that introduced a provision regarding umbrella clauses<\/a>. The second decision pertains to the application of the ICC Arbitration Rules<\/a> and the waiver of the right to challenge an award through a domestic revisi\u00f3n<\/em> proceeding \u2013 a particular feature of the Guatemalan arbitration framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unconstitutionality of the Umbrella Clause in the Ley de Infraestructura Vial Prioritaria<\/em>. <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In November 2024, Guatemala\u2019s Congress enacted the Ley de Infraestructura Vial Prioritaria<\/em> or Priority Road Infrastructure Law<\/a> (\u201cLIVP<\/strong>\u201d). The LIVP regulates the contracting of priority road projects, aiming to enhance legal certainty and security for investors. It establishes mechanisms to ensure project execution and timely payments, while promoting competition and international participation through measures such as using English in bidding documents and meetings, pre-qualifying international bidders, and removing obstacles to their participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the highlights of the LIVP was the inclusion of a so-called umbrella clause allowing foreign investors to resort to ICSID arbitration if a relevant investment treaty applies. According to Art. 84 of the LIVP: \u201cForeign investors will have the right to resort to ICSID provided that an Investment Treaty applicable to the investor so provides. For the purposes of Investment Arbitration, this article shall be understood as an umbrella clause for Road Infrastructure Contracts<\/em>\u201d. Umbrella clauses are commonly found in treaties but, it is rare to find them as part of  domestic law as these benefits for foreign investors are often negotiated in an international context and subject to reciprocity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On July 9, 2025, the Guatemala\u2019s Constitutional Court ruled that Art. 84 was unconstitutional<\/a>. The Constitutional Court considered that the umbrella clause in the LIVP was disproportionate as it grants unilateral privileges to foreign investors without reciprocity to Guatemalan investors, which creates both economical and legal uncertainty for Guatemala.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guatemalan Constitutional Court Upholds Waiver to Challenge Award Under ICC Rules <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Under Art. 43 of the Guatemala\u2019s Arbitration Law, awards may be challenged before the Court of Appeals, which can order an award\u2019s modification or annulment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This may run contrary to international practice which considers awards to be final, binding, and enforceable under the law. However, recently the Court of Appeals<\/a> confirmed that, in arbitrations administered by the ICC, the parties are deemed to have waived their right to challenge the award under Art. 35 of the ICC Arbitration Rules. This new interpretation aligns Guatemalan jurisprudence with international standards. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recently, the Constitutional Court confirmed<\/a> the view of the Court of Appeals and further elaborated on the application of the stoppel or non venirem contra factum propium <\/em>principle to the waiver of the right to challenge an award. The Constitutional Court concluded that, if the conduct of a party to the arbitration agreement indicates that it effectively waived its right to challenge the award, then the revisi\u00f3n <\/em>proceeding will not be considered available as a remedy against the award<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Recent Developments in Sectors Prone to Arbitration Disputes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Mining<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Back in 2024, International Metal Supply Holding S.A (a Swiss company, parent of Guatemalan mining company Mayan\u00edquel) filed a Notice of Intent<\/a> under the Switzerland-Guatemala Bilateral Investment Treaty (\u201cBIT\u201d) (2002)<\/a>, arguing that Guatemala unlawfully blocked its nickel-export operations by withholding the necessary export credentials and imposing unjustified administrative restrictions. The claim is estimated at around US $100 million. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although this case has no significant updates for 2025, based on conversations with stakeholders in the mining sector, it appears that the dispute continues to deepen based on recent measures by the Guatemalan mining authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Energy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In April 2025, Guatemala\u2019s national electricity distributors and the CNEE launched PEG 5<\/a>, the country\u2019s largest energy tender<\/a>, aiming to contract up to 1,400 MW for delivery between 2030 and 2045, <\/sup>with an estimated US $4 billion investment. <\/sup>PEG 5 removes the previous price cap and restricts participation from existing plants to encourage new developments. Compared to previous PEG tenders, the PEG 5 introduces several key innovations. It eliminates the previous cap on the maximum sale price to distribution companies\u2013\u2013a cap previously tied to outcomes from previous PEGs\u2013\u2013and limits participation from existing power plants to encourage the development of new plants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guatemala\u2019s electricity sector is notoriously active in international commercial and investment arbitrations. With the launch of PEG 5 and the expected investment of billions of dollars, the risk of future disputes is heightened: new long-term contracts (PPAs) with both local and foreign investors, novel regulatory frameworks (e.g., for energy storage), and large-capacity generation projects all create fertile ground for potential contractual or treaty-based claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Guatemala expands its grid and promotes competition, investors could challenge future regulatory decisions, changes in price or capacity terms, or enforcement of contractual obligations, making the sector a likely hotspot for arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Updates on Local Arbitration Centers in Guatemala<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In 2025, Guatemala\u2019s arbitration institutions saw a notable generational shift in leadership. At the Comisi\u00f3n de Resoluci\u00f3n de Conflictos de la C\u00e1mara de Industria de Guatemala<\/a> (\u201cCRECIG<\/strong>\u201d), Victor L\u00f3pez<\/a> was appointed General President and Coordinator, while Carolina Diab continues to contribute from the Board of Directors. Similarly, at the Arbitration and Conciliation Center of the Chamber of Commerce of Guatemala<\/a> (\u201cCENAC<\/strong>\u201d), Edson L\u00f3pez<\/a> assumed the role of President, and Maria Eugenia Ferreyra was appointed General Director, signaling the emergence of a new generation of leaders shaping the future of arbitration in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

IBT Arbitration Center<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The IBT Arbitration Center (\u201cIBT<\/strong>\u201d), established in 2021, has quickly become a leading Guatemalan arbitral institution specializing in technology, financing, and consumer protection. In just four years, IBT has consolidated its position as a reference for promoting effective alternative dispute resolution methods. In 2025, the Center handled over 40 cases\u2014the highest caseload in the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras)\u2014with a majority focused on the financing sector. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

ABOUT THE AUTHORS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

David Enriquez<\/strong> is part of the Dispute Resolution department at ECIJA Guatemala<\/strong>, where he focuses on international arbitration. He has provided support in complex cases involving multi-party arbitrations and in a wide range of industries, such as pharmaceuticals, financing, construction and investments, and has previous experience in public international law. He is an alumni of DLA Piper\u2019s Global Scholarships Programme and a founding member of Club de Derecho y Negocios Internacionales, <\/em>a local organization that seeks to bolster the attractiveness of Guatemala for international commerce and as a seat for international arbitration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sof\u00eda Galindo<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>is an associate at\u00a0Adell & Merizalde<\/strong><\/a>, based in Bogot\u00e1, Colombia, focusing on international arbitration disputes, including both commercial and investment-treaty matters, with a particular emphasis on Latin American parties. She has experience acting under major arbitration frameworks, including the\u00a0International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cICSID<\/strong>\u201d), the\u00a0United Nations Commission on International Trade Law<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cUNCITRAL<\/strong>\u201d), the\u00a0International Chamber of Commerce<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cICC<\/strong>\u201d), and the\u00a0Permanent Court of Arbitration<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cPCA<\/strong>\u201d), gained through her work in the international arbitration teams of top-tier law firms in Paris, London and Bogot\u00e1.\u00a0Sof\u00eda holds a law degree from Universidad Francisco Marroqu\u00edn in Guatemala and an LL.M. from Queen Mary University of London. Sof\u00eda is a founding member of the Guatemalan Very Young Arbitration Practitioners (\u201cGTVYAP<\/strong>\u201d), part of the Global VYAP Network.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

2025 Arbitration Year in Review: Guatemala reviews ISDS cases, court decisions, mining and energy disputes, and local arbitral institutions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":291041,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"193"},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_description":"2025 Arbitration Year in Review: Guatemala reviews ISDS cases, court decisions, mining and energy disputes, and local arbitral institutions.","twitter_description":"2025 Arbitration Year in Review: Guatemala reviews ISDS cases, court decisions, mining and energy disputes, and local arbitral institutions.","twitter_title":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review - Guatemala","fb_title":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review - Guatemala","fb_image":"291042","twitter_image":"291042"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"","type":"","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[],"bad":[],"score_override":"","override_value":"","rating":[],"price":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[162,205,207,193,208,164,188,161],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-291039","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-americas","category-arbitration","category-commercial-arbitration","category-guatemala","category-investor-state-arbitration","category-latin-america","category-legal-insights","category-world"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291039","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=291039"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291039\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":291128,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291039\/revisions\/291128"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/291041"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=291039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=291039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=291039"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=291039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}