Yes, Uzbekistan signed the ICSID Convention on 17 March 1994 and deposited the instrument of ratification on 26 July 1995. The ICSID Convention entered into force for Uzbekistan on 25 August 1995.¹

Uzbekistan has not yet made any publicly recorded notifications or designations in connection with its signature of the ICSID Convention.²

Footnote(s):

¹ ICSID Database: “List of Contracting States and Other Signatories of the Convention”, available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/ICSID-3.pdf.

² ICSID Database: “Uzbekistan. Designations and Notifications”, available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/about/member-states/database-of-member-states/member-state-details?state=ST152; ICSID, “Contracting States and Measures Taken by Them for the Purpose of the Convention (ICSID/8)” (28 October 2022), available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022_Oct%2028_ICSID.ENG.pdf.

Uzbekistan acceded to the New York Convention on 7 February 1996, which entered into force for Uzbekistan on 7 May 1996. Upon accession, Uzbekistan did not make any declarations or reservations.³

Footnote(s):

³ Contracting States. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 – “The New York Convention”, available at: https://www.newyorkconvention.org/contracting-states.

No, Uzbekistan has not yet officially published a model BIT.

At present, Uzbekistan is a party to 50 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) in force:

1. India – Uzbekistan BIT (2024);
2. Belarus – Uzbekistan BIT (2019);
3.  Republic of Korea – Uzbekistan BIT (2019);
4. Tajikistan – Uzbekistan BIT (2018);
5. Turkey – Uzbekistan BIT (2017);
6. Russian Federation – Uzbekistan BIT (2013);
7. Saudi Arabia – Uzbekistan BIT (2011);
8. China – Uzbekistan BIT (2011);
9. Bahrain – Uzbekistan BIT (2009);
10. Oman – Uzbekistan BIT (2009);
11. Japan – Uzbekistan BIT (2008);
12. United Arab Emirates – Uzbekistan BIT (2007);
13.  Kuwait – Uzbekistan BIT (2004);
14. Slovenia – Uzbekistan BIT (2003);
15. Singapore – Uzbekistan BIT (2003);
16. Spain – Uzbekistan BIT (2003);
17. Hungary – Uzbekistan BIT (2002);
18. Lithuania – Uzbekistan BIT (2002);
19. Portugal – Uzbekistan BIT (2001);
20. Sweden – Uzbekistan BIT (2001);
21. Bangladesh – Uzbekistan BIT (2000);
22.  Islamic Republic of Iran – Uzbekistan BIT (2000);
23. Austria – Uzbekistan BIT (2000);
24. Bulgaria – Uzbekistan BIT (1998);
25. Belgium – Luxembourg Economic Union – Uzbekistan BIT (1998);
26. Malaysia – Uzbekistan BIT (1997);
27. Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan BIT (1997);
28. Greece – Uzbekistan BIT (1997);
29. Czech Republic – Uzbekistan BIT (1997);
30. Kyrgyzstan – Uzbekistan BIT (1996);
31. Indonesia – Uzbekistan BIT (1996);
32. Romania – Uzbekistan BIT (1996);
33. Azerbaijan – Uzbekistan BIT (1996);
34. Latvia – Uzbekistan BIT (1996);
35. Viet Nam – Uzbekistan BIT (1996);
36. Netherlands – Uzbekistan BIT (1996);
37. Turkmenistan – Uzbekistan BIT (1996);
38. Republic of Moldova – Uzbekistan BIT (1995);
39. Georgia – Uzbekistan BIT (1995);
40. Slovakia – Uzbekistan BIT (1995);
41. Poland – Uzbekistan BIT (1995);
42. Israel – Uzbekistan BIT (1994);
43. United Kingdom – Uzbekistan BIT (1993);
44. France – Uzbekistan BIT (1993);
45. Germany – Uzbekistan BIT (1993);
46. Switzerland – Uzbekistan BIT (1993);
47. Ukraine – Uzbekistan BIT (1993);
48.  Egypt – Uzbekistan BIT (1992);
49. Finland – Uzbekistan BIT (1992);
50. Pakistan – Uzbekistan BIT (1992).⁴ 

    In addition, Uzbekistan has signed the following BITs:

51. Jordan – Uzbekistan BIT (2025) (not yet ratified);
52. Italy – Uzbekistan BIT (2025) (Uzbekistan has implemented all of the domestic procedures necessary for the entry into force of the said international BIT);
53. United States – Uzbekistan BIT (1994) (not ratified).⁵

Beyond BITs, Uzbekistan is also a party to a number of treaties containing investment provisions, including:

1. Agreement on Free Trade in Services, Establishment, Operation, and Investment (2023) between CIS member-states;
2. Framework Agreement between the Government of the United States of America, the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan, the Government of Turkmenistan, and the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan Concerning the Development of Trade and Investment Relations (2004);
3. Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (1996);
4. The Energy Charter Treaty, Trade Amendment and Related Documents (1994).

Uzbekistan has also signed, but not yet ratified, the Agreement on Promotion and Protection of Investments among ECO Member States (2005).

In particular: To what extent do such treaties adopt or omit any of the language in your state’s Model BIT or otherwise restrict or broaden the investor’s rights? In particular:

a. Has your state exercised termination rights or indicated any intention to do so? If so, on what basis (e.g. impact of the Achmea decisions, political opposition to the Energy Charter Treaty, or other changes in policy)?

The following BITs were terminated:

1. China – Uzbekistan BIT (1992) was replaced by China – Uzbekistan BIT (2011);
2. Russian Federation – Uzbekistan BIT (1997) was replaced by Russian Federation – Uzbekistan BIT (2013);
3. Turkey – Uzbekistan BIT (1992) was replaced by Turkey – Uzbekistan BIT (2017);
4. Republic of Korea – Uzbekistan BIT (1992) was replaced by Republic of Korea – Uzbekistan BIT (2019);
5. India – Uzbekistan BIT (1999) was unilaterally denounced by India and terminated on 22 March 2017;
6. Italy – Uzbekistan BIT (1997) was denounced.⁶

b. Do any of the treaties reflect (i) changes in environmental and energy policies, (ii) the advent of emergent technology, (iii) the regulation of investment procured by corruption, and (iv) transparency of investor state proceedings (whether due to the operation of the Mauritius Convention or otherwise).

(i) The India – Uzbekistan BIT (2024) contains the ‘right of the state to regulate’ provisions allowing signing parties to “take regulatory or other measures to ensure that development in its territory is consistent with the goals and principles of sustainable development, and other legitimate social, economic, environmental or any other public policy objectives”.⁷ (Article 3). Further, the BIT excludes certain ‘public purpose’ regulatory actions, including measures addressing impact on the environment, not to be regarded as expropriatory measures. (Article 6). The BIT also encourages investors and their enterprises operating within the territory of each signatory to voluntarily integrate internationally recognised corporate social responsibility standards, i.a., in the area of environment, “such as statements of principle that have been endorsed or are supported by the Parties”,⁸ into their internal policies and business practices. (Article 13). Finally, the BIT contains a ‘General Exceptions’ Article that preserves the State’s regulatory space by acknowledging its authority to adopt and implement non-discriminatory measures aimed, among other things, at protecting and conserving the environment. (Article 34).

A number of BITs contain general exceptions allowing signatory states to adopt, maintain, or enforce non-discriminatory measures related to the:

1) (i) protection of human, animal or plant life or health; (ii) protection and conservation of the environment, including all living and non-living natural resources;⁹

2) (i) protection of human, animal or plant life or health, or the environment; (ii) conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources;¹⁰

3)         protection of human, animal or plant life or health, or the environment.¹¹

Additionally, the Turkey – Uzbekistan BIT (2017) provides that “[n]on-discriminatory legal measures designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as health, safety and environment, do not constitute indirect expropriation”.¹²

(ii)        None of the signed BITs address emergent technologies.

(iii)       Provisions regulating investments procured by corruption can only be found in the India – Uzbekistan BIT (2024). According to Article 12(V) thereof investors are prohibited from investing by fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, corruption, money laundering, abuse of process or similar illegal mechanisms.

(iv)       Uzbekistan is not a signatory to the Mauritius Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (2014).

The India – Uzbekistan BIT (2024) reflects principles incorporating wide transparency standards into their dispute resolution mechanisms in Article 24.

The Republic of Korea – Uzbekistan BIT (2019) expressly provides in footnote 5 that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (UN Doc A/CN.9/783) shall not apply to arbitrations initiated under Article 11(2)(c) of the BIT (initiated under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) unless the contracting Parties otherwise agree. The BIT contains the requirement that the contracting Parties ‘enter into consultations’ on the future application of the said rules to arbitrations initiated pursuant to Article 11(2)(c) of the BIT upon request of a Party.

Footnote(s):

⁴ UNCTAD. International Investment Agreements Navigator. Uzbekistan, available at: https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/countries/226/uzbekistan.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ UNCTAD. International Investment Agreements Navigator. Uzbekistan. Italy – Uzbekistan BIT (1997), available at: https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaties/bilateral-investment-treaties/2134/italy—uzbekistan-bit-1997-

⁷ India – Uzbekistan BIT (2024), Article 3, paragraph 3.1.

⁸ India – Uzbekistan BIT (2024), Article 1.

⁹ Belarus – Uzbekistan BIT (2019), Article 7, paragraphs 34.1(ii)-(iv).

¹⁰ Republic of Korea – Uzbekistan BIT (2019), Article 17, paragraph 1(d).

¹¹ Turkey – Uzbekistan BIT (2017), Article 5, paragraph 1(a).

¹² Turkey – Uzbekistan BIT (2017), Article 6, paragraph 2.

Yes, in 2019 Uzbekistan had passed Law “On Investments and Investment Activities” No. ZRU-598 of 25 December 2019 (“LOI”).¹³ It is the main legislation for regulating foreign investments in Uzbekistan. Based on the publicly available information, a revised LOI is being developed with the World Bank and IFC’s support. The updated law is aimed to align Uzbekistan’s investment framework with international standards, strengthen investor protections, and expand equal treatment and incentives for foreign investors.¹⁴

If so:

a. Please list out any formal criteria imposed by such legislation / instrument (if any) concerning the admission and divestment of foreign investment;

The LOI does not contain any formal criteria concerning the admission and divestment of foreign investment.

b. Please list out what substantive right(s) and protection(s) foreign investors enjoy under such legislation / instrument;

The following rights are granted to investors in Uzbekistan under the LOI:¹⁵

• freely carry out investment activities, decide the volumes, types, forms, scope and directions of investment that do not contradict the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan;
• enter into contracts with legal entities and individuals for investment activities;
• own, use and dispose of its investments and results of investment activities, as well as sell and export the results of investment activities;
• independently and freely dispose of income received as a result of investment activities, after payment of taxes, fees and other payments provided for by law;
• use the property and any property rights owned by it as security for all types of obligations undertaken by it, including obligations aimed at attracting borrowed funds;
• receive reasonable compensation in case of requisition (expropriation) of its investments and other assets;
• raise funds in the form of loans and borrowings;
• receive compensation for losses caused as a result of illegal actions (inaction) and decisions of governmental bodies, local authorities and their officials.

Further, the following substantive protections are guaranteed to foreign investors in Uzbekistan under the LOI:

• Non-interference from state bodies and officials and non-discrimination (Article 15).
• Use of proceeds (Article 16): income from investment activity may be reinvested or used otherwise at the investor’s discretion after taxes and other payments.
• Free transfer and repatriation of funds (Article 17): free transfer in foreign currency into/out of Uzbekistan (subject to taxes and other payments) with limited ‘pause’ grounds provided under the law.
• Free repatriation on termination of investment activity (Article 18): foreign investor may terminate investment activity. After termination, it has the right to repatriate assets without prejudice to obligations to Uzbekistan or its other creditors.
• Protection from adverse legislative changes (Article 19): Uzbek laws are generally not retroactive if harming investor or investment.
• Transparency and access to information (Article 20): state bodies must publish information about their participation and decisions in investment sphere and ensure open access to such information.
• Protection against nationalization, requisition and expropriation (Article 21): State guarantees protection in line with domestic law and international treaties of Uzbekistan. Investments and other assets are not subject to nationalization, while requisition/expropriation is available only in exceptional circumstances (e.g., disasters/accidents/epidemics etc.) and subject to compensation safeguards.

c. Please list out what recourse (if any) a foreign investor has against the home state in respect of its rights under such legislation / instrument; and

Under Article 63 of the LOI, a foreign investor’s recourse against Uzbekistan is generally broken down to the following stages.

First, an investment dispute on the territory of Uzbekistan must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.

Second, if the parties fail to reach an agreed solution through negotiations, the dispute must be submitted to mediation.

Third, where an investment dispute is not resolved through negotiations and mediation, it must be adjudicated by the competent courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Under LOI, the dispute may also be referred to international arbitration, on the condition that a valid and applicable arbitration agreement exists, as provided for in:

i. an international treaty of the Republic of Uzbekistan, and/or

ii. a contract entered into between an investor and the Republic of Uzbekistan.

d. Does this legislation regulate the use of third-party funding and other non-conventional means of financing.

No, the LOI does not contain regulation on the use of third-party funding or other non-conventional means of financing.

Footnote(s):

¹³ Law “On Investments and Investment Activitiy” No. ZRU-598 of 25 December 2019 available at: https://lex.uz/ru/docs/4664144 in Uzbek and Russian.

¹⁴ The new edition of the Law “On Investments and Investment Activities” was approved. The Government Portal of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Available at: https://gov.uz/en/miit/news/view/33970.

¹⁵ Ibid., Articles 10, 21.

Yes, there has been 11 reported cases where Uzbekistan appeared as a respondent in investor-state disputes.¹⁶

First, Uzbekistan challenged jurisdiction of the Tribunal in multiple cases.

In Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3), Uzbekistan requested Metal-Tech’s claims to be dismissed on two jurisdictional grounds: first, because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the express terms of the BIT and, second, because Uzbek law did not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the dispute did not meet the consent requirement set in Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention. Accordingly, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over this dispute.¹⁷

In Romak S.A. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan (PCA Case No. 2007-07/AA280), Uzbekistan challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction on the basis that the claimant did not own an ‘investment’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the applicable BIT. Uzbekistan argued that Romak’s rights arose solely from a one-off commercial sales contract for the delivery of wheat, and that such a transaction did not constitute a protected investment. It further contended that the alleged conduct was not attributable to the State and that the domestic courts had acted reasonably. The Tribunal upheld Uzbekistan’s objection, finding that the dispute arose out of a purely commercial transaction and that, in the absence of a qualifying investment, Uzbekistan had not consented to arbitration under Article 9 of the BIT, with the result that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.¹⁸

In Vladislav Kim and others v. Republic of Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6), the latter made 4 jurisdictional objections (in relation to nationality, investments made, legality of investments and corruption). The Tribunal rejected all the jurisdictional objections.¹⁹

In Oxus Gold PLC v. Republic of Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Uzbekistan challenged jurisdiction of the Tribunal as well, which resulted in the Partial Award on the Issue of Jurisdiction on 9 August 2012 not available to public (“Partial Award”).²⁰ In the Partial Award the Tribunal dismissed respondent’s jurisdictional objection with regard to claimant’s standing reserving other jurisdictional objections to a subsequent or final award.²¹ Later Uzbekistan challenged Tribunal’s jurisdiction and admissibility towards claimant’s AGF claims. The Tribunal found respondent’s challenge unfounded and rejected it.

Second, Uzbekistan filed counterclaims in at least two cases.

In Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3), the State submitted “that, as a result of the Claimant’s unlawful actions and because the State has an ownership interest in AGMK and UzKTJM, the Respondent has suffered damages due to the Claimant’s misrepresentation”.²² As a consequence of it having no jurisdiction over the claims based on lack of consent, the Tribunal found no jurisdiction over the counterclaims.²³

In Oxus Gold PLC v. Republic of Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Uzbekistan advanced counterclaims against the investor but the Arbitral Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction over Respondent’s counter-claims.²⁴

Third, Uzbekistan resisted set-aside proceedings at the seat and enforcement in other jurisdictions.

In Oxus Gold PLC v. Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Uzbekistan successfully defended the award against annulment before the Paris Court of Appeal, which rejected the Claimant’s application in full and ordered costs in Uzbekistan’s favour. Oxus applied to the Paris Court of Appeal for partial set aside of the award insofar as it rejected its claims relating to the expropriation of its investment in AGF. It argued a breach of the principles of contradiction and equality of arms of Article 1520 4° and 5° of the French Code of Civil Procedure.²⁵

At the enforcement stage, Uzbekistan sought to defeat attachment attempts in Switzerland against a property located in Switzerland that belong to the Republic of Uzbekistan.²⁶ Finally, the Swiss Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision on the annulment of the attachment order. Parallel enforcement proceedings in the United States were stayed pending annulment in France and later resumed. Ultimately, the case was settled. Therefore, proceedings were terminated with prejudice.²⁷

Footnote(s):

¹⁶ ICSID Cases Database, available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/concluded; https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/pending.

¹⁷ Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013.

¹⁸ Romak S.A. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA280, Award, 26 November 2009.

¹⁹ Vladislav Kim and others v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2017.

²⁰ https://www.italaw.com/cases/781.

²¹ Oxus Gold PLC v. Republic of Uzbekistan, the State Committee of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral Resources, and Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinat, UNCITRAL, Award, 17 December 2015, at [81].

²² Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, at [393].

²³ Ibid., at [413].

²⁴ Oxus Gold PLC v. Republic of Uzbekistan, the State Committee of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral Resources, and Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinat, UNCITRAL, Award, 17 December 2015, at [959].

²⁵ See Société Oxus Gold PLC c/ République d’Ouzbekistan, Paris, No. 16/16502 (14 May 2019);

²⁶ Judgment of the ‎Swiss Supreme Court of 7 September 2018, available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/781.

²⁷ See Gretton Limited v The Republic of Uzbekistan (Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-01755-JEB), Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, filed on 8 July 2020; Gretton Limited v The Republic of Uzbekistan (Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-01755-JEB), United States Court of Appeal, Order No. 19-7102, filed on 30 July 2020, available at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/.

No, last year (2025) no publicly available awards were issued.

At the end of 2024, however, an award was issued in favor of Uzbekistan in the case Bursel Tekstil Sanayi Ve Diş Ticaret A.Ş. and others v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/24 (based on Turkey – Uzbekistan BIT (1992)). Claims arising out of the Government’s of Uzbekistan alleged failure to uphold promises made to the claimants, including the right to buy cotton at discounted prices and the exemption from value-added tax on export products, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the claimants’ companies.²⁸

Additionally, in 2025, Humans Mobile Ltd. (Singapore) initiated investor-state arbitration proceedings against Uzbekistan (Humans Mobile Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/25/24). This case is based on Singapore – Uzbekistan BIT (2003).

Footnote(s):

²⁸ https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/country/226/uzbekistan/investor.

There is no publicly available information of non-ICSID investment treaty arbitrations seated in Uzbekistan.

i) Available interim measures

Uzbekistan has not implemented specific provisions for interim measures in support of investment treaty proceedings. There is neither publicly available court practice in Uzbekistan in support of investment treaty proceedings.

Uzbek domestic legislation only stipulates in Article 28¹ and Chapter 29¹ of the Code of Economic Procedure of the Republic of Uzbekistan (CEP) that national courts have the authority to grant interim relief in support of international commercial arbitration and to recognize and enforce arbitral awards on interim measures in support of international commercial arbitration conducted under the Uzbek Law “On International Commercial Arbitration” of 2021 (LICA).

That said, Uzbekistan has taken institutional steps to promote arbitration of investment-related disputes. In 2018, a Presidential Resolution “On the establishment of the Tashkent International Arbitration Center (TIAC) under the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Uzbekistan” expressly envisaged the resolution of disputes relating to investments, intellectual property, and blockchain technologies through international arbitration. Where parties, including state entities, have agreed to submit disputes to arbitration under the TIAC Arbitration Rules, they may also take advantage of the interim relief provisions envisages by the Rules, if any.

The TIAC Arbitration Rules 2021 provide an internal mechanism for interim relief. Article 25.1 empowers arbitral tribunals to order interim measures, while Article 25.2 allows parties to seek urgent interim or conservatory relief prior to the constitution of the tribunal. Article 25.3 further clarifies that recourse to interim measures ordered by a tribunal or a court does not constitute a waiver of the arbitration agreement or incompatibility with the TIAC Arbitration Rules.

(ii) Court practice

As stated above, there is no publicly available court practice in Uzbekistan in support of investment treaty proceedings.

As with interim measures, Uzbekistan does not have specific default procedures applicable to appointment of arbitrators in support of investment treaty proceedings. In investment treaty proceedings, the constitution of arbitral tribunals is determined by the dispute settlement mechanism agreed by the parties, most commonly under the ICSID Convention and its Arbitration Rules, the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, or ad hoc arbitration conducted pursuant to the UNCITRAL or PCA Arbitration Rules.

Uzbek domestic legislation regulates the default appointment of arbitrators only in relation to international commercial arbitration. Article 16 of the LICA establishes fallback appointment procedures in circumstances where the parties have failed to reach agreement.

(i) Grounds for annulment

In Uzbekistan, there are no specific provisions stating the grounds on which non-ICSID award can be annulled or set aside.

In commercial arbitration, applications to set aside arbitral awards are regulated by Article 50 of the LICA and relevant provisions of CEP (Article 232⁵). An arbitral award may be annulled solely on limited grounds, which mirror those set out in the UNCITRAL Model Law. These include, in particular, the following:

• a party to the arbitration agreement lacked capacity or the arbitration agreement was invalid;
• a party was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case;
• the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or falling outside the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure did not comply with the parties’ agreement or mandatory provisions of Uzbek law;
• the subject matter of the dispute is not arbitrable under Uzbek law;
• the award is contrary to the public policy of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

An application for setting aside must be filed within three months from the date on which the applicant received the award. The court is expressly prohibited from reviewing the merits of the dispute. Where an award is set aside, this does not prevent the parties from re-submitting the dispute to arbitration, provided the arbitration agreement remains valid.

(ii) Court practice

There are no publicly reported cases in which Uzbek courts or authorities have relied on Article 50 of the LICA in the context of non-ICSID investor-state dispute.

Generally, ICSID awards cannot be challenged or annulled before courts in Uzbekistan. As a party to the ICSID Convention, Uzbekistan recognises that such awards are final and binding, and must be enforced as if they were domestic court judgments.

Any attempt to contest an ICSID award is therefore limited to the Convention’s own annulment procedure under Article 52, which provides narrowly defined grounds, including:

• improper constitution of the tribunal;
• manifest excess of powers;
• corruption of a tribunal member;
• serious procedural irregularities;
• failure to state the reasons for the award.

Annulment requests are considered by ICSID ad hoc committees, and Uzbek courts have no authority to review, modify, or set aside ICSID awards.

There is no publicly available court practice in Uzbekistan challenging ICSID awards.

The ability of a State to invoke sovereign immunity from suit and/or execution is not specified in the Uzbek legislation. Uzbekistan is not a party to the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, and the LOI does not contain express provisions addressing State immunity from either jurisdiction or enforcement.

For the purposes of ICSID arbitrations, by virtue of Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention, Contracting States, including Uzbekistan, have given consent to ICSID jurisdiction.

Uzbek legislation does not specify the requirements with respect to the request for enforcement of an ICSID award. There is no publicly available Uzbek case law regarding the application of any grounds to resist recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards.

Non-ICSID investment treaty awards may be recognised and enforced pursuant to the New York Convention and to the CEP. Article 254 of the CEP expressly provides that state courts, when considering cases decided by the foreign arbitral tribunal, may not review an arbitral award on the merits.²⁹

As to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, they are enumerated in Article 256 of the CEP and in major part mirror the grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) of the New York Convention. Paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Article 256 of the CEP introduces one more ground for refusal – “if the dispute was resolved by an incompetent foreign arbitration.” Another additional ground stems from Paragraph 3 of Part 2 of Article 256 of the CEP. Pursuant to those provisions, recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused where the applicable three-year limitation period³⁰ has lapsed.

Article 256 of the CEP enumerates the following grounds for challenge similar to those stated in the New York Convention:

(a) parties to the arbitration agreement were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the arbitral award was made;

(b) a party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case;

(c) the arbitration award has been made on a dispute which is not provided for or does not fall under the terms of the arbitration agreement or arbitration clause in the agreement, or contains resolutions on the issues that extend beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or the arbitration clause in the agreement, except for cases where resolutions on the issues covered by the arbitration agreement or clause therein may be separated from those not covered by such an agreement or a clause;

(d) the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place;

(e) the award has not yet become binding on parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.

Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be also refused on the following three additional grounds:

(a) subject matter of a dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Uzbek laws;

(b) recognition or enforcement of an award would be contrary to the public policy of Uzbekistan.

Footnote(s):

²⁹ Article 254 of the CEP available at https://lex.uz/docs/3523895.

³⁰ Ibid., Article 248 of the CEP.

Uzbekistan has no dedicated statutory regime governing the enforcement of arbitral awards against state-owned assets or the assets of state-owned or state-linked entities.

Under the general principles described in Articles 79–80 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the State participates in civil relations through competent bodies, but does not automatically answer for the debts of separate legal entities, and such entities do not answer for the debts of the State, absent a specific legal basis (e.g., an express guarantee).

In Romak SA v Republic of Uzbekistan (Cour de cassation, 5 March 2014),³¹ French courts lifted an attachment over funds derived from air navigation charges, treating them as sovereign revenues covered by immunity from execution; any waiver in pledge documents in favor of other creditors was read narrowly and creditor-specifically, not as a general waiver.

We are unaware of any publicly available cases where a court in Uzbekistan has enforced an arbitral award against state-owned assets or the assets of a state-owned entity in the context of an investment treaty arbitration.

Footnote(s):

³¹ La République d’Ouzbekistan c. Romak SA Geneva, Cass. Civ. 1ère, 5 mars 2014, no. 12-22406, available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000028703508/; La République d’Ouzbekistan c. Romak SA Geneva, Appel. Civ., Pôle 1 – Chambre 5, 25 mai 2011, no. 11/06213, available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000024129623?p.

Uzbekistan is a rapidly developing country. To achieve its 2030 aim to become an upper middle-income nation, Uzbekistan has launched “a radical reform programme designed to liberalise the economy, attract foreign investment, dramatically expand the country’s technological capacity and strategic infrastructure, and reduce regulatory burdens on businesses”.³²

Uzbekistan’s current foreign economic policy prioritizes strengthening economic diplomacy and expanding trade, investment, financial, and technological cooperation across multiple regions. In particular, the Government seeks to deepen strategic and economic ties with CIS countries, the European Union, the Asia-Pacific region, the United States, with a clear focus on increasing exports and attracting foreign investment.³³

In order to expand foreign investment and enhance economic cooperation between certain nations ,³⁴ over 2025, Uzbekistan has entered into two additional bilateral investment treaties with Italy and Jordan (yet to enter into force). It has also ratified the Bilateral Investment Treaty between the Government of Uzbekistan and India, signed on September 27, 2024.³⁵

Over the past few years, Uzbekistan has actively developed its international commercial arbitration framework.

First, in 2021, Uzbekistan adopted the LICA³⁶ and amended the CEP to reflect the developments. With respect to commercial arbitration, over the years, Uzbek courts have generally demonstrated a pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement approach, even in cases against state-owned entities. According to LICA, the arbitral award, regardless of the country in which it was made, is recognized as binding, and must be enforced upon submission of a written application.³⁷

Second, established in 2018, the Tashkent International Arbitration Centre (TIAC) has rapidly gained prominence as a neutral and cost-efficient forum for international commercial disputes, involving parties from around the globe. TIAC has seen steady growth in cross-border cases, including disputes between non-Uzbek parties, reflecting its increasing international profile. In 2023, TIAC strengthened its position through the adoption of cross-institutional arbitration rules with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), combining TIAC’s regional expertise and efficiency with HKIAC’s global reputation. This development enhanced TIAC’s role as a competitive platform for resolving cross-border disputes in the Eurasian and Asia-Pacific regions.

In 2025, Uzbekistan has announced plans to establish the Tashkent International Commercial Court (TICC), which is intended to complement the TIAC “as an independent judicial body based on the principles and practices of common law, aimed at providing international investors with access to a fair and reliable legal institution” ³⁸. As explained by Diana Bayzakova, Director of the Tashkent International Arbitration Centre: “The establishment of the TICC provides investors with a choice. With arbitration, economic courts, and now the special International Commercial Court, Uzbekistan offers investors comprehensive conditions”³⁹. Once operational, the TICC is anticipated to play a significant role in positioning Uzbekistan as a centre for international dispute resolution, offering market participants a credible and neutral judicial forum for cross-border commercial disputes.

Footnote(s):

³² https://invest.gov.uz/en/reason/strategy.

³³ See the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On the State Program for the Implementation of the Uzbekistan-2030 Strategy in the Year of Support for Youth and Business” of 11 September 2023 No. УП-158, attaching “STRATEGY “UZBEKISTAN – 2030”” available at: https://lex.uz/docs/6600404. (in Russian and Uzbek).

³⁴ Uzbekistan and Jordan Sign 15 Bilateral Agreements to Strengthen Partnership. (26.08.2025). UZ Daily. Available at: https://www.uzdaily.uz/en/uzbekistan-and-jordan-sign-15-bilateral-agreements-to-strengthen-partnership/. See also The Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between India and Uzbekistan. The Embassy of India, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Available at: https://eoitashkent.gov.in/the-bilateral-investment-treaty-bit-between-india-and-uzbekistan/#:~:text=India%20and%20Uzbekistan-,The%20Bilateral%20Investment%20Treaty%20(BIT)%20between%20India%20and%20Uzbekistan,effect%20from%2015th%20May%2C%202025; Uzbekistan and Italy strengthen the strategic partnership. (29.05.2025). The President of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Available at: https://president.uz/en/lists/view/8168.

³⁵ UNCTAD. International Investment Agreements Navigator. Uzbekistan, available at: https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/countries/226/uzbekistan.

³⁶ https://www.lex.uz/docs/5698676.

³⁷ The Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 2021, Article 51, available at: https://lex.uz/docs/5698676.

³⁸ Resolving International Disputes in Uzbekistan: The Tashkent International Commercial Court. (10.06.2025). The Ministry of Investment, Industry and Trade of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Available at: https://gov.uz/en/miit/news/view/60022.

³⁹ Ibid.

The recent India – Uzbekistan BIT (2024), expressly excludes third-party funding.