THE AUTHORS:
Sara Lucía Dangón-Novoa, Foreign Litigation Associate at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle.
Nicolás Rosero-Espinosa, Colombian-Qualified Lawyer.
This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, 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.
Key International Agreements
Colombia expanded and updated its international arbitration and investment promotion framework through the following key developments:
United States-Colombia Free Trade Commission Decision No. 9
On January 15 2025, the Free Trade Commission of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (2006)(“US – Colombia TPA”) issued Decision No. 9, which sets out interpretations of certain provisions in the Free Trade Agreement (“FTA”) Investment Chapter, such as national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment, minimum standard of treatment, expropriation, and submissions of claims to arbitration.
Belt and Road Initiative with China
In May 2025, Colombia signed a cooperation agreement with China to join the Belt and Road Initiative, thereby opening channels for Chinese investment and potentially expanding the scope of disputes that may be subject to arbitration under China-Colombia investment frameworks. This development builds on the existing China – Colombia Bilateral Investment Treaty (2008), signed in 2008 and in force since 2013.
Colombia-Venezuela Bilateral Investment Treaty
On August 13 2025, Colombia’s Constitutional Court approved the Colombia – Venezuela Bilateral Investment Treaty (2023), confirming that the treaty is consistent with the national constitution. The treaty establishes investor-state dispute resolution through ad hoc arbitration under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules (“UNCITRAL Rules”), and excludes International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) arbitration, reflecting Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965) (“ICSID Convention”) in 2012.
Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) Host Country Agreement
On September 30 2025, Colombia entered into a Host Country Agreement with the PCA, facilitating the conduct of PCA proceedings in Colombia. The agreement enables the PCA to administer arbitrations seated in Colombia and reinforces Colombia’s position as a viable seat for international arbitration proceedings.
Japan Economic Partnership Agreement Negotiations
In September 2025, Colombia reactivated negotiations for an Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan, which had been suspended since 2021 after starting in 2012. If concluded, the agreement will likely include investment protection and arbitration provisions, further expanding Colombia’s network of investment treaties.
Saudi Arabia-Colombia Memorandum of Understanding
On October 30 2025, Colombia and Saudi Arabia concluded a memorandum of understanding to promote direct investment and facilitate the exchange of statistical information on investments, thereby diversifying Colombia’s investment partnerships beyond its traditional focus on the Western Hemisphere and European partners.
Notable Arbitral Proceedings
Perimetral Oriental de Bogota U.S. Award Enforcement
On April 11 2025, Perimetral Oriental de Bogota filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce a USD 317 million ICDR (International Centre for Dispute Resolution) award against Colombia’s National Infrastructure Agency pursuant to the New York Convention, as incorporated into the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act.
Perimetral Oriental seeks to enforce an arbitral award issued on December 18 2024, in the case Perimetral Oriental de Bogota v. ANI, 01-20-0015-3123 (clarified on March 7 2025). The arbitration proceedings were seated in Bogota, Colombia, and were conducted pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in a concession contract dated September 8 2014, for the construction and operation of a highway section.
Aris Mining Arbitration Settlement
On November 19 2025, Colombia reached a settlement with Aris Mining to terminate an ongoing ICSID arbitration (Aris Mining v. Colombia, ARB 18/23). The settlement agreement establishes a 10-year cooperation framework supervised by a joint committee. The arbitration was initiated in May 2018 by Gran Colombia Gold Corp. (now Aris Mining), with a claim for up to USD 380 million in damages. While details remain confidential, this resolution demonstrates Colombia’s willingness to negotiate settlements in investment disputes, potentially avoiding adverse awards.
Key Legislative Developments
Colombia issued the Enforcement Arbitration Statute through Law 2540 of 2025 (“Enforcement Arbitration Statute”), introducing arbitration for enforcement proceedings (Carolina Posada, Camila Castaño, Daniela Corchuelo, ‘Arbitrators Will Now Have Enforcement Powers in Colombia’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 29 September 2025)). This reform responds to a practical problem: enforcement proceedings represent over 70% of all civil litigation in Colombia, resulting in court congestion and delays in access to justice. The Enforcement Arbitration Statute complements Colombia’s existing arbitration framework, set forth in Law 1563 of 2012, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
Under the Enforcement Arbitration Statute, arbitrators are empowered to conduct enforcement proceedings and to order the compulsory execution of obligations, producing effects equivalent to those of a state court judge. This delegation of enforcement authority—traditionally reserved for the judiciary—aims to alleviate court congestion and provide creditors with an alternative and efficient mechanism for debt recovery.
The Enforcement Arbitration Statute establishes specific procedural limitations for enforcement arbitration. For example:
- Enforcement arbitration must be conducted through an institutional arbitration mechanism,
- Ad hoc arbitration is strictly prohibited,
- All arbitral awards must be rendered in law (en derecho), and
- Any provision allowing awards rendered in equity or technical expertise is null and void.
The Enforcement Arbitration Statute also establishes procedures and limitations for award enforcement. Certain national arbitral awards may be enforced by the same tribunal that issued them, provided the enforcement request is filed within 10 business days following notification of the award or the decision resolving any clarification, correction, or addition. In panel tribunals, the enforcing arbitrator is the presiding arbitrator or, alternatively, another arbitrator selected in alphabetical order. For sole arbitrator tribunals, the same arbitrator acts as the enforcement arbitrator. If no arbitrator accepts the role, the arbitration center will constitute a new tribunal from its list of enforcement arbitrators.
Enforcement arbitral proceedings are conducted by two types of arbitrators with distinct but complementary roles:
- Enforcement arbitrators (árbitros ejecutores) are responsible for conducting and deciding the enforcement arbitration process. Typically, a single arbitrator presides over each case regardless of its value, although the parties may agree to appoint an odd-numbered panel for cases of higher value.
- Preliminary measures arbitrators (árbitros de medidas cautelares previas), by contrast, are appointed to handle preliminary precautionary measures before the main enforcement arbitration process begins. They act as sole arbitrators, must meet at least the same qualifications as enforcement arbitrators, and are bound by equivalent duties, disclosure obligations, and grounds for disqualification or recusal.
Key Institutional Developments
On July 16 2025, the Colombian government issued Presidential Directive No. 5 (“Directive”), establishing guidelines for national executive branch entities regarding arbitration agreements in domestic and international arbitrations. The Directive governs how the state engages with arbitration.
The Directive requires that any decision to enter into arbitration agreements or arbitration clauses be preceded by a legal and economic evaluation of the appropriateness of arbitration in each specific case, considering the alternative, temporal, exceptional, and voluntary nature of this dispute resolution mechanism. The subscription of arbitration agreements shall correspond to a public management decision.
Under the Directive, whenever a covered executive branch entity enters into an arbitration agreement or includes an arbitration clause, it must first obtain legal opinion from its legal office or directorate on the legal and economic advisability of arbitration in the specific case. The entity must record the justification for choosing arbitration in the contract file to ensure transparency and accountability. The clause must also guarantee gender diversity by including at least one woman arbitrator on the tribunal.
In addition, the entity must seek prior approval from the Director of the National Agency for the Legal Defense of the State (Agencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado) to coordinate the protection of state interests in legal proceedings. Finally, covered entities shall refrain from submitting commercial disputes to ICSID tribunals.
The Directive also contains guidelines for the appointment of arbitrators, requiring the approval of the Director of the National Agency for the Legal Defense of the State before the appointment of arbitrators and promoting the appointment of women arbitrators.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Sara Lucía Dangón-Novoa is a Colombian-qualified lawyer and foreign litigation associate at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP in New York, where she assists in the representation of foreign states and state-owned entities. She has extensive experience in international dispute settlement. She has assisted in the representation of Latin American states in ICSID proceedings and, as a public officer at Colombia’s Ministry of Trade, represented the Republic of Colombia before the WTO and Andean Community dispute settlement mechanisms. She has served as an International Economic Law Professor at Universidad de los Andes and Universidad Javeriana. She authored the case for the 19th Edition of the John H. Jackson Moot Court Competition and has both coached and participated in the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. She holds an LL.M. from Harvard Law School, where she served as Vice President of Harvard International Arbitration Law Students Association (“HIALSA”). She serves on the board of directors of Colombia Very Young Arbitration Practitioners (“COLVYAP”).
Nicolás Rosero-Espinosa arbitration practitioner and Colombian-qualified lawyer with over a decade of professional experience. He has developed his practice at leading Latin American law firms, including Bullard Falla Ezcurra and Baker McKenzie (Lima), where he served as a Senior Associate in the international disputes practice. Throughout his career, he has acted as counsel in commercial, investment, and sports arbitration proceedings, including cases conducted under ICSID, ICC, and UNCITRAL Rules, with experience spanning a wide range of regulated industries, including energy, infrastructure, telecommunications, construction, and technology. In addition to his work as counsel, he has collaborated with arbitral tribunals as tribunal secretary, gaining insight into arbitral proceedings from the tribunal’s perspective. He is listed as an arbitrator before regional arbitral institutions in Latin America and maintains an active involvement in academic and professional initiatives related to international arbitration as a lecturer, speaker, and author. He is currently based in Geneva, Switzerland, where he is pursuing an LL.M. candidate in International Dispute Settlement (“MIDS”) at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (“IHEID”) and the University of Geneva (“UNIGE”), as a recipient of the MIDS–Young ICCA Scholarship. He serves on the board of directors of Colombia Very Young Arbitration Practitioners (“COLVYAP”).
*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.
