{"id":130872,"date":"2026-03-09T13:22:47","date_gmt":"2026-03-09T13:22:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=130872"},"modified":"2026-04-02T10:17:29","modified_gmt":"2026-04-02T10:17:29","slug":"guinea-investment-treaty-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/guinea-investment-treaty-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"Guinea: Investment Treaty Arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-130872","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-investment-treaty-arbitration","jurisdictions-guinea"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">ASK Avocats<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/02\/Logo-ASK-1-1.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">ASK Avocats<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/02\/Logo-ASK-1-1.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Investment Treaty Arbitration laws and regulations applicable in Guinea<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your home state signed and \/ or ratified the ICSID Convention? If so, has the state made any notifications and \/ or designations on signing or ratifying the treaty?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Guinea signed the Convention of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (\u201cICSID\u201d) on 27 August 1968; it was ratified on 4 November 1968 and entered into force for Guinea on 4 December 1968.<\/p>\n<p>Guinea designated Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des Mines de Fer de Guin\u00e9e (16 August 1983) and Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Nationale des Eaux de Guin\u00e9e (17 April 1991) as entities qualified to become parties to disputes submitted against the central Government.<\/p>\n<p>Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Nationale des Eaux de Guin\u00e9e (SEG) was reorganized into the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des Eaux de Guin\u00e9e (SEG-SA) in 2001, as part of the reforms of the drinking water sector.<\/p>\n<p>To date, no notifications have been made under Articles 25(3) or 25(4) of the Convention.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>ICSID Database: &#8220;List of Contracting States and Other Signatories to the Convention&#8221;, available at:<a href=\"https:\/\/icsid.worldbank.org\/sites\/default\/files\/ICSID-3.pdf\"> https:\/\/icsid.worldbank.org\/sites\/default\/files\/ICSID-3.pdf<\/a>;<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/segguinee.com\/\">https:\/\/segguinee.com\/<\/a> ;<\/li>\n<li>ICSID, &#8220;Contracting States and Measures Taken by Them for the Purposes of the Convention (ICSID\/8)&#8221; (October 28, 2022), available at : <a href=\"https:\/\/icsid.worldbank.org\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/2022_Oct%2028_ICSID.ENG.pdf\">https:\/\/icsid.worldbank.org\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/2022_Oct%2028_ICSID.ENG.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your home state signed and \/ or ratified the New York Convention? If so, has it made any declarations and \/ or reservations on signing or ratifying the treaty?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Guinea is a party to the New York Convention by accession, deposited on 23 January 1991.<\/p>\n<p>There are no declarations or reservations recorded for Guinea.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><br \/>\nContracting States. New York Arbitration Agreement. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.newyorkconvention.org\/contracting-states\">https:\/\/www.newyorkconvention.org\/contracting-states<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your home state have a Model BIT? If yes, does the Model BIT adopt or omit any language which restricts or broadens the investor's rights?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Guinea has not adopted an officially published or publicly accessible Model BIT. Bilateral investment treaties are concluded on a case by case basis with partner States.<\/p>\n<p>Language concerning investor rights (protection, expropriation, dispute settlement, etc.) varies between agreements, and there is no uniform framework that systematically restricts or expands those rights.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/investmentpolicy.unctad.org\/international-investment-agreements\/countries\/87\/guinea?type=bits\">https:\/\/investmentpolicy.unctad.org\/international-investment-agreements\/countries\/87\/guinea?type=bits<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please list all treaties facilitating investments (e.g. BITs, FTAs, MITs) currently in force that your home state has signed and \/ or ratified. 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)? 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). c) Does your jurisdiction publish any official guidelines, notes verbales or diplomatic notes concerning the interpretation of treaty provisions and other issues arising under the treaties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Bilateral investment treaties currently in force (signature \/ entry into force):<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Canada \u2013 Guinea BIT (2015 \/ 2017)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Turkey BIT (2013 \/ 2019)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 United Arab Emirates BIT (2011 \/ 2014)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 South Africa BIT (2007)<\/li>\n<li>France \u2013 Guinea BIT (2007 \/ 2017)<\/li>\n<li>Germany \u2013 Guinea BIT (2006 \/ 2014)<\/li>\n<li>Burkina Faso \u2013 Guinea BIT (2003 \/ 2004)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Malaysia BIT (1996 \/ 1997)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Serbia BIT (1996 \/ 1998)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Italy BIT (1964 \/ 1965)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Switzerland BIT (1962 \/ 1963)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>BITs signed but not in force:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>China \u2013 Guinea BIT (2005)<\/li>\n<li>Chad \u2013 Guinea BIT (2004)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Lebanon BIT (2004)<\/li>\n<li>Gambia \u2013 Guinea BIT (2002)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Morocco BIT (2002)<\/li>\n<li>Cameroon \u2013 Guinea BIT (2001)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Mauritius BIT (2001)<\/li>\n<li>Benin \u2013 Guinea BIT (2001)<\/li>\n<li>Ghana \u2013 Guinea BIT (2001)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Mali BIT (2001)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Mauritania BIT (2001)<\/li>\n<li>Egypt \u2013 Guinea BIT (1998)<\/li>\n<li>Guinea \u2013 Tunisia BIT (1990)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>BIT terminated:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Germany \u2013 Guinea BIT (1962) \u2014 terminated, with termination effective 14 August 2014.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Treaties containing investment provisions currently in force:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Agreement establishing the AfCFTA \/ AfCFTA (2018 \/ 2019)<\/li>\n<li>ECOWAS Investment Framework (2008 \/ 2010)<\/li>\n<li>ECOWAS Common Investment Code (2019 \/ 2021)<\/li>\n<li>Revised ECOWAS Treaty (1993 \/ 1995)<\/li>\n<li>OIC Agreement on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (1981 \/ 1988)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>To what extent do such treaties adopt or omit portions of your State\u2019s Model BIT text, or otherwise restrict or expand investor rights?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Because Guinea has no official Model BIT, there is no single reference text against which to compare systematically the formulations adopted or omitted in its bilateral investment treaties. Treaty language therefore differs by partner State and must be assessed on a treaty by treaty basis.<\/p>\n<p><strong>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)?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Germany\u2013Guinea BIT of 1962 was terminated, with the termination date recorded as 14 August 2014. The terminated treaty was replaced by a successor instrument, the Germany\u2013Guinea Agreement of 2006<\/p>\n<p><strong>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).<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Most of Guinea\u2019s BITs do not address developments in environmental or energy policy, emerging technologies, anti corruption measures, or enhanced transparency.<\/p>\n<p>However, these matters are in rare cases addressed at two levels: treaty provisions and domestic law.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Treaty level: The Canada\u2013Guinea BIT is a notable example that integrates environmental and corporate social responsibility (CSR) clauses and contains a transparency regime (see provisions titled \u201cTransparency\u201d, \u201cHealth, Safety and Environmental Measures\u201d, and \u201cCorporate Social Responsibility\u201d).<\/li>\n<li>Domestic law: Guinea\u2019s 2015 Investment Code expressly includes objectives such as environmental protection, promotion of the green industry, research and technology transfer, and prohibits investors from engaging in corruption.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>c) Does your jurisdiction publish any official guidelines, notes verbales or diplomatic notes concerning the interpretation of treaty provisions and other issues arising under the treaties?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Guinea does not publish formal interpretative guidelines or diplomatic notes concerning the interpretation of its BITs; interpretative practice is carried out on a case by case basis, in the course of negotiations or in arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/investmentpolicy.unctad.org\/international-investment-agreements\/countries\/87\/guinea?type=bits\">https:\/\/investmentpolicy.unctad.org\/international-investment-agreements\/countries\/87\/guinea?type=bits<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Law L\/2015\/N\u00b0008\/AN of 25 May 2015 on the Investment Code of the Republic of Guinea.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your home state have any legislation \/ instrument facilitating direct foreign investment. If so: a) Please list out any formal criteria imposed by such legislation \/ instrument (if any) 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; 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 d) Does this legislation regulate the use of third-party funding and other non-conventional means of financing.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The primary domestic reference is the Investment Code of Guinea (Law L\/2015\/No.008\/AN of 15 May 2015).<\/p>\n<p><strong>5(a) \u2014 Formal criteria for admission and divestment<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>a) Please list out any formal criteria imposed by such legislation \/ instrument (if any) concerning the admission and divestment of foreign investment;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Investment Code sets out a sectoral scope and specific exclusions (articles 3 and 4). Trading activities consisting of resale in the same state are excluded, as are activities governed by the Mining Code and the Petroleum Code. The Code identifies reserved sectors in which foreign persons may not hold more than 40% of equity through entities engaged in the listed activities and requires effective management in certain cases (article 6). On divestment, the Code recognizes the freedom of transfers of investment related assets subject to fiscal regulations, the right to remit profits and current payments abroad without prior authorization, and access to foreign exchange subject to foreign exchange regulations (article 17).<\/p>\n<p><strong>5(b) \u2014 Substantive rights and protections for foreign investors<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>b) Please list out what substantive right(s) and protection(s) foreign investors enjoy under such legislation \/ instrument;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Investment Code provides for national treatment of foreign investors subject to permitted derogations aimed at promoting domestic entrepreneurship in specific critical sectors and consistent with international obligations. It guarantees protection against nationalization, expropriation without indemnification and requisition except for public purpose and with prompt, adequate and effective compensation. The Code also secures freedom of transfers and access to foreign exchange (articles 7 et seq.).<\/p>\n<p><strong>5(c) \u2014 Remedies available to foreign investors against the home State<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>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;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For disputes under the Investment Code, the text provides for amicable settlement and, failing that, recourse to the competent Guinean courts. The Code also permits submission of disputes to arbitration if the parties agree (article 43). In parallel, applicable BITs establish investor\u2013State arbitration mechanisms and more detailed procedural rules, including transparency provisions and rules on provisional measures.<\/p>\n<p><strong>5(d) \u2014 Regulation of third party funding and unconventional financing<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>d) Does this legislation regulate the use of third-party funding and other non-conventional means of financing.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>No specific provision on third party funding or other non conventional financing methods exists in Guinea.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Guinea&#8217;s Investment Code: Law L\/2015\/No.008\/AN of 15 May 2015.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your home state appeared as a respondent in any investment treaty arbitrations? If so, please outline any notable practices adopted by your state in such proceedings (e.g. participation in proceedings, jurisdictional challenges, preliminary applications \/ objections, approach to awards rendered against it, etc.)<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Guinea has been respondent in several ICSID proceedings, including Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Civile Immobili\u00e8re de Ga\u00ebta v. Republic of Guinea (ICSID ARB\/12\/36), Getma International et al. v. Republic of Guinea (ICSID ARB\/14\/22), and BSG Resources Limited et al. v. Republic of Guinea (ICSID ARB\/14\/22).<\/p>\n<p>Guinea has contested jurisdictional issues, notably the nationality of the claimant and therefore the claimant\u2019s status as an investor entitled to invoke the arbitration clause. Guinea\u2019s procedural strategy mirrors that of many States: jurisdictional objections, challenges to the basis of consent, scrutiny of investor nationality and corporate structure, and disputes over the qualification of the investment. In some cases, notably BSG, the State has been actively engaged on issues of transparency and confidentiality.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Jusmundi &#8211; ICSID Case No. ARB\/12\/36: Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Civile Immobili\u00e8re de Ga\u00ebta v. Republic of Guinea;<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/icsidfiles.worldbank.org\/icsid\/icsidblobs\/NewsLetters\/DCEVENTS12.pdf\">https:\/\/icsidfiles.worldbank.org\/icsid\/icsidblobs\/NewsLetters\/DCEVENTS12.pdf<\/a> ;<\/li>\n<li>usmundi &#8211; Affaire CIRDI No. ARB\/11\/29 : Getma International and others c. R\u00e9publique de Guin\u00e9e (II) ;<\/li>\n<li>ICSID Case No. ARB\/14\/22 &#8211; BSG Resources Limited, BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited and BSG Resources (Guinea) SARL v. Republic of Guinea (ICSID Case No. ARB\/14\/22) &#8211; 23 March 2017<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/investmentpolicy.unctad.org\/investment-laws\/laws\/176\/guinea-investment-code\">https:\/\/investmentpolicy.unctad.org\/investment-laws\/laws\/176\/guinea-investment-code<\/a> ;<\/li>\n<li>Information Note on Cancellation for the attention of the ICSID Administrative Council &#8211; August 10, 2012: <a href=\"https:\/\/icsidfiles.worldbank.org\/icsid\/icsidblobs\/NewsLetters\/DCEVENTS12.pdf.\">https:\/\/icsidfiles.worldbank.org\/icsid\/icsidblobs\/NewsLetters\/DCEVENTS12.pdf.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has jurisdiction been used to seat non-ICSID investment treaty proceedings? If so, please provide details.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Guinea is a member of the OHADA treaty. The OHAHA Common Court of Justice and Aribtration hosts an arbitration chamber which is competent to hear investment related claims against the member-states.<\/p>\n<p>The OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration applies where the seat of arbitration is in an OHADA State and expressly permits arbitration founded on an instrument relating to investments (article 3). Guinea has been an OHADA member since 21 November 2000. However, no claims have been entered against Guinea in OHADA arbitration.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>OHADA Uniform Act on the Law of Arbitration (revised, adopted in Conakry on 23 November 2017 and published in the special OHADA Official Journal of 15 December 2017), Article 3.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please set out (i) the interim and \/ or preliminary measures available in your jurisdiction in support of investment treaty proceedings, and (ii) the court practice in granting such measures.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under OHADA arbitration law applicable in Guinea, an arbitral tribunal may order provisional or conservatory measures, while conservatory seizures and judicial liens remain within the competence of State courts (article 14). The tribunal\u2019s measures are intended to preserve the effectiveness of the arbitral process, for example by preserving evidence or maintaining the status quo. The Canada\u2013Guinea BIT contains a specific provision on provisional measures (article 35). Published Guinean court decisions illustrating a settled practice on emergency or conservatory support to arbitration proceeding are scarce.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the OHADA Uniform Act on the Law of Arbitration (revised, adopted in Conakry on November 23, 2017 and published in the special OHADA Official Journal of December 15, 2017).<\/li>\n<li>BIT Canada-Guin\u00e9e- Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between Canada and the Republic of Guinea<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please set out any default procedures applicable to appointment of arbitrators and also the Court's practice of invoking such procedures particularly in the context of investment treaty arbitrations seated in your home state.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Pursuant to articles 5 and 6 of the OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration, the default rule is a sole arbitrator if the parties have not agreed on the number of arbitrators. For a three member tribunal, each party appoints one arbitrator and the two party appointed arbitrators select the presiding arbitrator. If a party fails to appoint, the competent national court of the State party intervenes to make the appointment. There is limited publicly available material showing how Guinean courts have applied these default appointment mechanisms in investor\u2013State arbitrations.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration Law (revised, adopted in Conakry on 23 November 2017 and published in the special OHADA Official Journal of 15 December 2017) &#8211; Articles 5 and 6.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In the context of awards issued in non-ICSID investment treaty arbitrations seated in your jurisdiction, please set out (i) the grounds available in your jurisdiction on which such awards can be annulled or set aside, and (ii) the court practice in applying these grounds.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>For an award rendered in an OHADA State (and thus potentially in Guinea if the seat is there), the grounds and procedure for annulment are governed by the OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration. Article 26 lists the limited grounds for annulment: absence, nullity or expiry of the arbitration agreement; irregular constitution of the tribunal; abuse of arbitral mandate as stated in the TOR; violation of the adversarial principle\/right to be heard; conflict with international public policy; and failure to state reasons for the award. The Uniform Act provides a strict framework for recourse and ultimately for review by the CCJA in the final instance. There is a paucity of published Guinean decisions or CCJA rulings on Guinean cases that would illustrate how these grounds are applied in practice.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>OHADA Uniform Act on the Law of Arbitration (revised, adopted in Conakry on 23 November 2017 and published in the special OHADA Official Journal of 15 December 2017) \u2013 Article 26.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In the context of ICSID awards, please set out: (i) the grounds available in your jurisdiction on which such awards can be challenged and (ii) the court practice in applying these grounds.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>For an ICSID award, challenges do not proceed by way of a domestic setting aside; the relevant mechanism is ICSID annulment under the Convention\u2019s internal procedure. The classic grounds for annulment under Article 52(1) include irregular constitution of the tribunal, manifest excess of powers, corruption of a tribunal member, serious violation of a fundamental rule of procedure, and failure to state reasons. In practice, annulment proceedings are heard by ad hoc committees constituted under ICSID; national courts (including Guinean courts) do not set aside ICSID awards. National courts\u2019 role is primarily limited to recognition and enforcement, subject to the limits of the ICSID Convention and applicable domestic rules on execution immunity.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/icsid.worldbank.org\/fr\/actualites-et-evenements\/communiques\/le-cirdi-publie-une-note-dinformation-mise-jour-relative-annulation\">https:\/\/icsid.worldbank.org\/fr\/actualites-et-evenements\/communiques\/le-cirdi-publie-une-note-dinformation-mise-jour-relative-annulation<\/a> ;<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/icsid.worldbank.org\/resources\/publications\/background-papers-annulment\">https:\/\/icsid.worldbank.org\/resources\/publications\/background-papers-annulment<\/a> ;<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/icsid.worldbank.org\/sites\/default\/files\/publications\/Annex_two.pdf.\">https:\/\/icsid.worldbank.org\/sites\/default\/files\/publications\/Annex_two.pdf.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To what extent can sovereign immunity (from suit and\/or execution) be invoked in your jurisdiction in the context of enforcement of investment treaty awards.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Jurisdictional immunity: Under the OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration, and specifically Article 2, States and other public legal entities may be parties to arbitration and may not invoke their own domestic law to challenge arbitrability or their capacity to arbitrate. Once consent to arbitration exists, the argument of jurisdictional immunity generally loses force within the arbitral forum.<\/p>\n<p>Execution immunity: By contrast, immunity from execution remains governed by domestic law. The ICSID framework itself recognizes that national laws on execution immunity continue to apply (Article 55). Under OHADA and recent reforms, the revised Uniform Act on Simplified Recovery Procedures and Enforcement Remedies (AUPSRVE, 17 October 2023) provides that, absent an express waiver, there is no forced execution or conservatory measures against public legal persons (including the State, local authorities and public establishments). Practically, a creditor seeking to enforce an award may face an immunity barrier unless it can rely on a clear, enforceable waiver of immunity.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the OHADA Uniform Act on the Law of Arbitration (revised, adopted in Conakry on 23 November 2017 and published in the special OHADA Official Journal of 15 December 2017) \u2013 Article 2;<\/li>\n<li>ICSID CONVENTION AND RULES &#8211; ICSID\/15\/Rev. 1 January 2003; Article 53 et seq.;<\/li>\n<li>the revised Uniform Act on Simplified Recovery Procedures and Enforcement Procedures (AUPSRVE) of 17 October 2023; Article 30.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please outline the grounds on which recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards can be resisted under any relevant legislation or case law. Please also set out any notable examples of how such grounds have been applied in practice.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In MINE v. Republic of Guinea (ICSID ARB\/84\/4), Guinea sought a stay of enforcement and a provisional stay was granted under Article 52(5) (Interim Order No. 1, 12 August 1988).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Convention CIRDI (art. 52(5), 53\u201355) ; MINE v. Guinea \u2013 Interim Order No. 1 (12\/08\/1988).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please outline the practice in your jurisdiction, as requested in the above question, but in relation to non-ICSID investment treaty awards.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>For non ICSID treaty awards (UNCITRAL, ICC, etc.), recognition and enforcement in Guinea follow the framework applicable to conventional arbitral awards:<\/p>\n<p><strong>OHADA framework:<\/strong> Where the seat is in an OHADA State, the OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration (23 November 2017) governs enforcement. An award is enforceable only after an exequatur (Article 30); exequatur may be refused only if the award is manifestly contrary to the international public policy of the States Parties (Article 31). The decision granting exequatur is not subject to ordinary appeal; refusal may be appealed to the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA) (Article 32). Awards rendered under different rules are recognised and enforced pursuant to applicable international conventions or, failing that, under the same conditions (Article 34).<\/p>\n<p><strong>New York Convention:<\/strong> Guinea is a party to the New York Convention (accession: 23 January 1991). For foreign awards, the domestic court may refuse recognition on the grounds listed in Article V (invalid arbitration agreement, violation of due process, excess of mandate, irregular composition\/procedure, award not binding or annulled\/suspended at seat, non arbitrability, public policy). Article VI permits the court to stay proceedings where annulment or suspension is sought at the seat.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Illustrative case:<\/strong> In Getma International v. Republic of Guinea, enforcement proceedings in the United States were stayed pending the outcome of annulment at the seat, and enforcement was refused following annulment, demonstrating the practical operation of the Article V(1)(e)\/VI stay and annulment mechanisms.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration (Articles 30\u201334);<\/li>\n<li>New York Convention (1958) (arts. V\u2013VI);<\/li>\n<li>UN \u2013 Statute of Guinea (accession of 23\/01\/1991);<\/li>\n<li>\u00a0jurisprudence Getma v. Guinea (US).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To what extent does your jurisdiction permit awards against states to be enforced against state-owned assets or the assets of state-owned or state-linked entities?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Enforcement against State or State related assets in Guinea depends primarily on (i) the applicable execution immunity regime and (ii) the legal status of the debtor (State, public establishment, or commercial entity).<\/p>\n<p><strong>ICSID awards:<\/strong> Although recognition is mandatory (Article 54), Article 55 of the ICSID Convention confirms that enforcement remains subject to domestic rules on execution immunity. Consequently, Guinea did not create a framework banning that the State may resist attachment or sale of public assets on immunity grounds unless there is a clear waiver.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Non ICSID awards and OHADA enforcement:<\/strong> Enforcement measures are governed by the revised AUPSRVE (entered into force 16 February 2024), which clarifies and strengthens protections for public legal persons and requires an express waiver to permit enforcement against them (Article 30).<\/p>\n<p><strong>State related commercial entities:<\/strong> If the debtor is a public legal person (State, public establishment), immunity typically applies absent express waiver. If the debtor is a commercial company, even if publicly owned, its assets are generally treated as private and are therefore more readily subject to enforcement, subject to any specific OHADA jurisprudence or statutory protections.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Convention CIRDI (art. 54\u201355) ;<\/li>\n<li>OHADA press release on the entry into force of the revised AUPSRVE (16\/02\/2024); recent doctrine on the article. 30 AUPSRVE (immunities) &#8211; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ohada.com\/actualite\/7010\/publication-au-journal-officiel-de-lohada-de-lacte-uniforme-du-17-octobre-2023-portant-organisation-des-procedures-simplifiees-de-recouvrement-et-des-voies-dexecution.html;\">https:\/\/www.ohada.com\/actualite\/7010\/publication-au-journal-officiel-de-lohada-de-lacte-uniforme-du-17-octobre-2023-portant-organisation-des-procedures-simplifiees-de-recouvrement-et-des-voies-dexecution.html;<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lexbase.fr\/article-juridique\/105185348-lepointsurlenouveaudroitohadadu.\">https:\/\/www.lexbase.fr\/article-juridique\/105185348-lepointsurlenouveaudroitohadadu.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please highlight any recent trends, legal, political or otherwise, that might affect your jurisdiction's use of arbitration generally or ISDS specifically.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>A prominent recent development (late 2025) is the initiation of a major mining dispute before ICSID: media outlets have reported that Axis International (UAE) has filed a claim against Guinea for approximately USD 29 billion, following the 2025 revocation of a mining license and alleged measures such as seizure of equipment and freezing of bank accounts. If confirmed and pursued, this case could significantly increase the prominence of the extractive sector in Guinea related ISDS litigation.<\/p>\n<p>At the regional normative level, instruments emanating from ECOWAS and the AfCFTA are increasingly relevant to Guinea. Some instruments are already in force (AfCFTA 2018; ECOWAS investment instruments), while the AfCFTA Investment Protocol (2023) appears signed but not yet in force, which may affect future treaty coverage and dispute settlement frameworks.<\/p>\n<p>On enforcement, recent clarifications to Article 30 of the OHADA enforcement regime (AUPSRVE) concerning execution immunity, notably the requirement of an express waiver to execute against public entities, may materially affect the practical recoverability of awards, irrespective of their merits.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ft.com\/content\/3ef783f3-87f3-4910-a678-9f7210eef94f?utm\">https:\/\/www.ft.com\/content\/3ef783f3-87f3-4910-a678-9f7210eef94f?utm<\/a> ;<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.africansecurityanalysis.org\/reports\/axis-international-vs-guinea-a-usd29-billion-bauxite-arbitration-and-its-wider-implications\">https:\/\/www.africansecurityanalysis.org\/reports\/axis-international-vs-guinea-a-usd29-billion-bauxite-arbitration-and-its-wider-implications<\/a>;<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.afrik.com\/bauxite-axis-international-reclame-29-milliards-de-dollars-a-la-guinee-un-seisme-pour-le-secteur-minier\">https:\/\/www.afrik.com\/bauxite-axis-international-reclame-29-milliards-de-dollars-a-la-guinee-un-seisme-pour-le-secteur-minier<\/a>;<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/dgd.gov.gn\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/ECOWAS-COMMON-INVESTMENT-CODEFRENCH.pdf;\">https:\/\/dgd.gov.gn\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/ECOWAS-COMMON-INVESTMENT-CODEFRENCH.pdf;<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/investmentpolicy.unctad.org\/country-navigator\/89\/guinea\">https:\/\/investmentpolicy.unctad.org\/country-navigator\/89\/guinea<\/a>;<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/investmentpolicy.unctad.org\/international-investment-agreements\/countries\/87\/guinea\">https:\/\/investmentpolicy.unctad.org\/international-investment-agreements\/countries\/87\/guinea<\/a>;<\/li>\n<li>the revised Uniform Act on Simplified Recovery Procedures and Enforcement Procedures (AUPSRVE) of 17 October 2023; Article 30.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please highlight any other investment treaty related developments in your jurisdiction to the extent not covered above (for e.g., impact of the Achmea decisions, decisions concerning treaty interpretation, appointment of and challenges to arbitrators, immunity of arbitrators, third-party funding and other non-conventional means of financing such proceedings).<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Two cross cutting developments merit emphasis. First, the adoption of the OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration in Conakry underscores Guinea\u2019s institutional integration into the OHADA arbitration architecture, with implications for seat selection, judicial assistance, remedies and exequatur procedures. Second, certain bilateral instruments (notably the Canada\u2013Guinea BIT) contain dedicated chapters or clauses on transparency, health, safety and environmental measures, and corporate social responsibility. These provisions can materially shape claim drafting, evidentiary expectations and procedural transparency in investor\u2013State disputes.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnote(s)<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ohada.com\/textes-ohada\/actes-uniformes.html?utm;\">https:\/\/www.ohada.com\/textes-ohada\/actes-uniformes.html?utm;<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.international.gc.ca\/trade-commerce\/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux\/agr-acc\/guinea-guinee\/fipa-apie\/index.aspx?lang=eng.\">https:\/\/www.international.gc.ca\/trade-commerce\/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux\/agr-acc\/guinea-guinee\/fipa-apie\/index.aspx?lang=eng.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">4452<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/130872","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}