{"id":131240,"date":"2026-03-09T13:22:46","date_gmt":"2026-03-09T13:22:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=131240"},"modified":"2026-03-09T13:22:46","modified_gmt":"2026-03-09T13:22:46","slug":"colombia-investment-treaty-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/colombia-investment-treaty-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"Colombia: Investment Treaty Arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-131240","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-investment-treaty-arbitration","jurisdictions-colombia"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Baker McKenzie, S.A.S.<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2021\/01\/baker-mckenzie.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Baker McKenzie, S.A.S.<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2021\/01\/baker-mckenzie.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 Colombia<\/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>Yes. Colombia signed the ICSID Convention on May 18, 1993, and it entered into force for Colombia on August 14, 1997.<\/p>\n<p>Colombia has made only one designation to the ratification of the Treaty, i.e.: the designation of the Plenary Chamber of the Third Section of the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Council of State as the competent court for the purpose of recognition and enforcement of awards rendered under the ICSID Convention, in accordance with Article 54 (2) of this Convention.<\/p>\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>Yes, Colombia ratified the New York Convention on September 25, 1979, and this treaty entered into force for Colombia on December 24, 1979. Colombia has not made any declarations and\/or reservations to this Convention.<\/p>\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>Yes, Colombia has had different versions of the Model BIT over the past 25 years . Based on publicly available information, the latest version of the Colombian Model BIT was published in 2017 by the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Tourism (MINCIT) through the Directorate of Foreign Investment and Services.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the Model BIT affords protection to investors under the established standards, while allowing contracting States the right to regulate investments in order to achieve legitimate public policy objectives, with a particular emphasis on the social responsibility of investors. It also highlights the State&#8217;s ability to apply general exceptions to investor protection in order to safeguard human rights or the environment. In addition, the Model BIT includes specific provisions regarding dispute resolution, for example, by setting a standard of review in fork-in-the-road cases and the burden of proof for the tribunal, and spelling out the minimum contents of an award, among others.<\/p>\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>Colombia has signed and ratified several international investment agreements (\u201cIIAs\u201d). These have been signed as BITs, or as investment protection chapters in FTAs. The following table lists of the BITs entered into by Colombia that are in force at the time of writing:<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\"><strong>Treaty Name<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"271\"><strong>Date of entry into force<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Agreement between the Republic of Colombia and the Kingdom of Spain for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">September 22, 2007<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Agreement between the Republic of Colombia and the Swiss Confederation on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments and its Protocol.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">October 6, 2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Bilateral Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the People&#8217;s Republic of China.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">July 2, 2012<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of India.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">July 3, 2012<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Bilateral Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments Colombia-United Kingdom.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">October 10, 2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Agreement between the Republic of Colombia and Japan for the Liberalization, Promotion and Protection of Investment.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">September 11, 2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the French Republic on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">October 14, 2020<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The following table lists the investment protection chapters in FTAs entered into by Colombia that are in force at the time of writing:<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\"><strong>Treaty Name<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"271\"><strong>Date of entry into force<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Free Trade Agreement between the United Mexican States and the Republic of Colombia and Venezuela (only applicable to Mexico).<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">January 1, 1995<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Trade Promotion Agreement between the Republic of Colombia and the United States of America.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">May 15, 2012<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Colombia and the Republics of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">November 12, 2009, for Guatemala; February 1, 2010, for El Salvador; March 27, 2010, for Honduras<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Colombia and Canada.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">August 16, 2011<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and the European Free Trade Association.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">July 1, 2011, for Switzerland and Liechtenstein; September 1, 2014, for Norway; October 1, 2014, for Iceland<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Korea.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">July 15, 2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and Costa Rica.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">July 29, 2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Additional Protocol to the Framework Agreement of Alianza del Pac\u00edfico (Colombia, Mexico, Chile, and Peru).<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">May 1, 2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Colombia and the State of Israel<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">August 11, 2020<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Free Trade Agreement between Alianza del Pacifico (Colombia, Chile and Peru) and Singapore<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">May 3, 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The following table lists the treaties with general investment provisions entered into by Colombia that are in force at the time of writing:<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\"><strong>Treaty Name<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"271\"><strong>Date of entry into force<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Economic Complementation Agreement (ACE 24) between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the Republic of Chile.<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">January 1, 1994<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Economic Complementation Agreement between Members of MERCOSUR and Colombia, Uruguay and Venezuela<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">April 1, 2005<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Trade and Investment Cooperation Arrangement between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Andean Community<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">May 31, 1999<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"330\">Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, of the other part<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\">June 1, 2013<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Please note that most IIAs currently in force were negotiated based on prior versions of the 2017 Model BIT.<\/p>\n<p>The majority of IIAs currently in force for Colombia include the same investor protection standards established in the 2017 Model BIT. Few include clauses related to investor social responsibility and sustainable development, such as the France-Colombia BIT, which encourages foreign investors to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized corporate social responsibility standards into their internal policies .<\/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>To date, Colombia has not exercised its right to terminate the IIAs it has signed and ratified, nor has it expressed any intention to do so. Colombia negotiated a new BIT with Spain that, upon entry into force, will replace the existing BIT.<\/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>Yes, some of the IIAs currently in force for Colombia include these types of provisions. For example, the IIAs signed with the U.S., Israel, Japan, and Chile contain provisions related to measures ensuring that investments are made with consideration for environmental concerns. Regarding corruption, the IIA with Japan includes a clause on measures and efforts to prevent corruption in investments. In terms of transparency in investor-state proceedings, the IIAs with Japan and France, and the FTA with Singapore also contain a clause requiring the contracting States to publish their state procedures that affect investment activities. These IIAs do not contain clauses that reflect the advent of emerging technology in matters related to investments.<\/p>\n<p>In the Free Trade Agreement between Alianza del Pacifico and Singapore, the Parties reaffirm the importance of encouraging enterprises operating within its territory to voluntarily incorporate into their internal policies guidelines and principles of corporate social responsibility, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.<\/p>\n<p>The IIA signed with Brazil, which is not in force at the time of writing, contains a provision focused on preventing the protection of investments obtained through corrupt or illicit practices .<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the BIT signed with Spain in 2021 expressly references the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Investor-State Arbitration .<\/p>\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>Yes, Colombia has published guides, verbal notes, or diplomatic communications regarding the interpretation of its IIAs. In fact, Colombia has signed interpretative notes on the investment chapter of the Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) with the United States and has also issued interpretative declarations for the IIAs with UK, India, France, Canada and Israel. These notes and interpretative declarations have been published in the IIAs section of the MINCIT\u2019s website (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.tlc.gov.co\/acuerdos\/a-internacional-de-inversion\">https:\/\/www.tlc.gov.co\/acuerdos\/a-internacional-de-inversion<\/a>); as well as in the Virtual Treaty Library of Colombia\u2019s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (<a href=\"https:\/\/sismre.cancilleria.gov.co\/PUBLICA\/tratados\/informacionTratado\">https:\/\/sismre.cancilleria.gov.co\/PUBLICA\/tratados\/informacionTratado<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\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>Colombia does not have an investment facilitation legislation nor an investment law. Certain regulations exist concerning foreign exchanges and transactions, yet they are not an instrument that sets forth detailed protection standards for foreign investors. Rather, it is a regulation primarily focused on governing the foreign exchange aspects of foreign capital investment in the country.<\/p>\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>Yes, Colombia has appeared as a respondent in 29 publicly known investment treaty arbitration cases: 16 in which an award has been rendered, 16 pending cases, and 3 discontinued cases. In addition, by the end of 2025, the Government of Colombia reported 18 cases in pre-arbitral stage.<\/p>\n<p>Colombia has generally participated in the proceedings represented by counsel. Colombia\u2019s legal defense is coordinated by the Agencia Nacional para la Defensa Jur\u00eddica del Estado, an entity that has a team of specialized lawyers focused on investment arbitrations. Most of the times, the State hires external counsel who work in tandem with this team.<\/p>\n<p>Colombia has filed preliminary objections and it has successfully challenged the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals or rendered certain claims inadmissible . For example, in case AFC Investment Solutions S.L. v. Republic of Colombia (ICSID Case No. ARB\/20\/16) Colombia prevailed in a preliminary objection to dismiss an investor\u2019s claims for manifest lack of legal merit under Article 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules.<\/p>\n<p>At the time of writing, there are 7 applications for annulment of publicly known awards pending .<\/p>\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\">Have any significant court decisions\/arbitral awards been issued in the last year involving your country (as a party or interested party)?<\/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>On July 15, 2024, the Eco Oro v. Colombia tribunal issued an award on damages. In its damages decision, the tribunal determined that the only identifiable loss arising from Colombia\u2019s breach was Eco Oro\u2019s inability to apply for an environmental license for the remainder of the original concession. The tribunal did not award damages to Eco Oro because it found that it had not provided sufficient evidence of the alleged damage. On April 1, 2025, the tribunal rejected Eco Oro\u2019s request to rectify the dissenting opinion of arbitrator Horacio Grigera regarding the damages award. It held that dissenting opinions are not considered part of the award under Article 53 of the ICSID Convention and fall outside its jurisdiction to amend. The tribunal ordered Eco Oro to pay USD 55.811,98 to cover Colombia\u2019s legal expenses and costs.<\/p>\n<p>In November 2025, the parties in Aris Mining v. Colombia informed the tribunal that they had reached a settlement. The tribunal in accordance with the parties\u2019 request, and pursuant to Rule 43(1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules of 2006, took note of the discontinuance of the proceeding.<\/p>\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>No, there is no publicly available information nor cases to our knowledge of non-ICSID investment treaty arbitrations that have been seated in Colombia.<\/p>\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>Colombia\u2019s arbitration statute was enacted by Law 1563 of 2012 (the \u201cArbitration Statute\u201d). The Arbitration Statute contains a dualistic regime, with specific provisions applicable to domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations.<\/p>\n<p>Concerning international arbitrations seated in Colombia and abroad, the Arbitration Statute provides that interim measures can be ordered by arbitral tribunals and by judicial authorities. Under this law, interim measures are all temporary measures issued at any moment prior to the award that finally decides the dispute, whether in the form of an award or not, by which parties are ordered to: (i) maintain or restore the status quo while the dispute is resolved; (ii) take actions to prevent imminent harm or the obstruction of the arbitration; (iii) preserve assets necessary for the enforcement of the award; or (iv) safeguard evidence that could be relevant to the dispute . The Arbitration Statute contains provisions on the enforcement of interim measures in international arbitrations .<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, Articles 71 and 90 of the Arbitration Statute state that parties may request interim measures to the judicial authorities, before the commencement of or during the arbitration proceedings, without it being understood as a waiver to the arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n<p>Arbitral Tribunals seated in Colombia may also order preliminary orders directing a party not to frustrate the purpose of the interim measure requested, prior to enacting an interim measure .<\/p>\n<p>We are not aware of investment cases concerning interim measures nor court practice in this regard.<\/p>\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>Article 73 of the Arbitration Statute sets out the default procedure for appointing arbitrators in international arbitrations seated in Colombia, applicable in cases in which the Parties have not agreed on a method of appointment of the arbitrators. In such cases, if a sole arbitrator must be appointed, the judicial authority will do so, if the parties fail to agree within 30 days. For tribunals with three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two co-arbitrators appointed will select the third arbitrator; if they fail to do so within 30 days, the court steps in. If an agreed procedure breaks down due to inaction or failure to reach an agreement, a judicial authority may appoint the arbitrator unless another solution is provided. The court ensures arbitrators meet required qualifications and remain independent and impartial. Its decisions on these matters are final and cannot be appealed.<\/p>\n<p>To date, there are no recorded cases in which Colombian courts have been asked to appoint arbitrators under this framework in investment arbitrations.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding the IIAs, the FTAs with Canada, Singapore, Chile, Costa Rica, Korea, and the USA include specific provisions for default procedures applicable to the appointment of arbitrators.<\/p>\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>Under Article 108 of the Arbitration Statute, an international arbitral award seated in Colombia can be annulled on specific grounds, some of which can be raised by one of the parties and others that can be declared by the judicial authority.<\/p>\n<p>A party may request annulment under the following grounds: (i) if it lacks capacity at the time of entering into the arbitration agreement, if the agreement was invalid under the law to which the parties submitted it, or absent a choice, under Colombian law; (ii) if it was not properly notified of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the proceedings, or it was otherwise unable to defend its rights; (iii) if the award deals with a dispute outside the terms of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) if the tribunal\u2019s composition or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless it conflicted with mandatory provisions of the law.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, Colombian courts can annul an award on their own initiative: (i) if the dispute was not arbitrable under Colombian law; and (ii) if the award violates Colombia\u2019s international public policy.<\/p>\n<p>To date, there are no court decisions on annulment requests for investment arbitration awards seated in Colombia under non-ICSID rules, yet there are multiple decisions regarding the annulment of international arbitral awards in commercial cases.<\/p>\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>The Colombian legal system does not establish specific rules for requesting the annulment or any type of review of ICSID awards.<\/p>\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>Colombia does not have a specific law or statute on sovereign immunities. The Constitutional Court has explained that sovereign immunities are governed by customary international law.<\/p>\n<p>Two recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Justice (\u201cSCJ\u201d) rejected recognition and enforcement of non-ICSID investment awards considering sovereign immunity from execution as a restrictive principle. These two decisions are discussed in the replies to question 15 below.<\/p>\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>The Arbitration Statute contains the rules and procedures for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Colombia does not have specific legislation or case law that outlines the grounds on which the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award can be resisted.<\/p>\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>Two recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the recognition and enforcement of non-ICSID investment awards on the basis of sovereign immunities.<\/p>\n<p>On August 30, 2022, the SCJ rejected Swiss Renewable Power Partners\u2019s request to recognise an award issued on February 28, 2020, in the PCA Case No. 2012-14, which concerned an investment dispute under the Energy Charter Treaty, filed by Swiss Renewable Power Partners against Spain. The SCJ considered that it had no jurisdiction to summon Spain based on the principle of immunity from jurisdiction. On September 13, 2023, the SCJ confirmed its decision on the decision AC2305-2023 addressing the recurso de suplica filed by Swiss Renewable Power Partners. The SCJ found that there was no applicable exception to the principle of sovereign immunity from execution enshrined in customary international law, nor was there evidence that Colombia or Spain were persistent objectors to this custom. Consequently, the SCJ denied recognition of the award, stating that Colombian judges lacked jurisdiction to enforce a foreign award against another State.<\/p>\n<p>On June 20, 2024, the SCJ issued decision SC1453-2024, denying a request for the recognition of the award issued in ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)\/12\/5, filed by Rusoro Mining Limited against Venezuela. This award was rendered under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules . The SCJ first concluded that, under customary international law, immunity from execution was restrictive. The SCJ acknowledged that Colombia is a party to the ICSID Convention, but the Convention does not override customary international law of immunity from execution. The SCJ then considered the provisions on enforcement of the ICSID Convention, particularly Article 54, in its analysis and found that they could not trump international custom on sovereign immunities.<\/p>\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>As per article 63 of Colombia\u2019s Constitution, Colombian Law recognizes the general principle that public assets cannot be seized (\u201c<em>inembargabilidad presupuestal<\/em>\u201d) and that Congress has the power to assign this characteristic to certain goods. The Constitutional Court has interpreted this principle and explained certain exceptions to it (for example, in the payment of labor obligations) .<\/p>\n<p>Article 594 of the General Code of Procedure allows for the seizure and execution of assets of state-owned entities if the service provided by these entities is managed by private parties. However, the seizure and execution are limited to the assets allocated for the provision of said public service and to a portion of the gross income generated by this service. In addition, the Code of Administrative Procedure provides for the proceedings for payment of judicial decisions by public entities and states that the breach by administrative authorities of provisions related to the recognition and payment of judicially recognized credits will result in criminal, disciplinary, fiscal and economic sanctions.<\/p>\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>Despite public announcements in 2024 by the government regarding the possibility of denouncing the ICSID Convention, to date, no decision or action has been taken on withdrawal. In fact, in November 2025, for the first time in Colombian history, Colombia reached an agreement in an ongoing investment arbitration, avoiding a potential judgment, with claims amounting to approximately USD 380 million in the <em>Aris Mining v. Colombia<\/em> case. The agreement promotes formalization of mining, strengthens security, and enhances sustainability. The government has mentioned that this agreement represents a significant step forward in the modernization of the state&#8217;s legal defense, demonstrating that it is possible to resolve investment disputes through dialogue and negotiation mechanisms that strengthen legal certainty and promote responsible business practices.<\/p>\n<p>The Colombian government issued a Presidential Directive No. 4 in July 2025 (the \u201cDirective\u201d). The Directive applies solely to public entities at the national level. It sets forth rules for entering into arbitration agreements and for appointing arbitrators in both domestic and international commercial arbitrations. Although not applicable to international investment arbitrations, the Directive requires that these entities avoid agreeing to international arbitration agreements that would submit disputes to ICSID.<\/p>\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>In recent years, Colombia has had mixed outcomes in terminated investment arbitration cases. There are 16 cases pending decision (i.e., award, annulment decision, etc), and their outcomes remain uncertain. Among these pending cases, in 2025, 4 cases were registered at ICSID:<\/p>\n<p>The <em>Maritime Archaeology Consultants Switzerland AG v. Colombia<\/em>, under the Colombia-Switzerland BIT, linked to the government\u2019s measures concerning the discovery of the galleon <em>San Jos\u00e9<\/em>. The <em>Centauro Capital<\/em>, S.L.U. and <em>Natanor XXI, S.L.U. v. Colombia<\/em>, under the Colombia-Spain BIT, involving claims arising from the state\u2019s decision to intervene in the operations of a Centauro&#8217;s owned health services company. The <em>Amec Foster Wheeler v. Colombia<\/em>, under the TPA United States \u2013 Colombia, alleging that state measures violated investment protections relating to a contract for management services in the Cartagena Refinery modernisation project. And the <em>EDP Renov\u00e1veis S.A. v. Colombia<\/em>, under the Colombia-Spain BIT, related to the investor\u2019s withdrawal from two wind energy projects in Colombia.<\/p>\n<p>Concerning the annulment procedures, 3 cases were registered in 2025: South32 SA<em> Investments Limited v. Colombia<\/em> requested by Colombia; and Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Colombia and Amec Foster Wheeler USA Corporation, Process <em>Consultants, Inc.<\/em>, and Joint Venture Foster Wheeler USA Corporation and Process Consultants, <em>Inc. v. Colombia<\/em> requested by the claimants respectively.<\/p>\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\">4440<\/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\/131240","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=131240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}