The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has published caseload statistics with data on its cases in 2025. The statistics provide interesting insights into the types, values, and outcomes of the cases, which are not otherwise available in the cases database due to confidentiality restrictions.

These statistics matter because they shed light on emerging patterns in investor-state arbitration, helping both investors and states understand how the legal environment is changing. By analysing this data, it is possible to better assess the likely risks and opportunities of bringing or facing claims before ICSID, which in turn allows more informed strategic decisions to be made.

This article examines emerging trends in ICSID arbitrations and provides guidance for investors and states.

ICSID investment arbitration trends

New cases

The number of new cases registered by ICSID remains stable, with 63 new cases in 2025. It is the second-highest number in ICSID history, second only to 2021 with 66 cases.

As of 31 December 2025 (and since its first case in 1972), ICSID registered 1,085 arbitration and conciliation cases.

Jurisdictional trends have evolved slightly. Over the last year, there has been a slight shift in the bases of consent invoked to establish ICSID jurisdiction. Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) remain the key source of investors’ rights, and the number of cases under BITs increased from 52% in 2024 to 58% in 2025. Direct contracts between the investors and states were relied on in 15% of cases. National investment laws remain an important tool deployed in 6% of cases in 2025.

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) saw its popularity drop from 14% in 2024 to 5% in 2025. This is likely due to a multiplicity of factors, including recent jurisprudence precluding arbitration between European Union (EU) investors and EU states under Article 26 ECT and issues with the enforcement of such awards, the coordinated withdrawal of the EU and nearly all its member states from ECT, as well as negative publicity for investors portrayed as obstructors of climate policy.

Outcomes

Most ICSID cases are decided by the tribunals with the rendering of final or partial awards. Historically, when disputes are decided by the tribunal, the success rate has remained approximately 50/50.

In 2025, 53% of awards upheld claims in part or in full. However, when looking at the principal amount of damages, the figure is less favourable for investors, with 60% of cases resulting in no damages awarded (including cases in which jurisdiction was declined, all claims dismissed on the merits, or liability upheld but no damages awarded to the investor).

The latest statistics include data on the ratio of damages in ICSID arbitrations. 2025 statistics are based on only 14 cases; however, these numbers are consistent with the trends in all ICSID cases. Claimants are most likely to be awarded damages in the range of 26-50% of the sums claimed (in 26% cases). 21% of investors were awarded 76-100% of the damages claimed, and another 21% were awarded under 10%. These amounts do not include interest, costs, or non-monetary relief obtained by claimants. Therefore, this information does not provide the full picture, given that interest has become a major financial component in investor‑state awards.

In 2025, settlement and discontinuance rates increased. The number of cases concluded before the award rose from 22% in 2024 to 33% in 2025. In half of those cases, proceedings were discontinued at the request of both parties, and therefore, likely reached a settlement. However, in a number of cases, discontinuance appears to have been caused by financial constraints on the claimants. The lack of payment of the required advances was cited as the reason in 11% (with an even higher 25% rate in 2024). Notably, statistics for July 2024-June 2025 named the failure to comply with an order to provide security for costs as a reason for discontinuance in 9% of cases.

Practical considerations

In light of these trends, investors should carefully consider the instruments for bringing claims, the costs of arbitration, and the likelihood of obtaining substantive damages. At the same time, states – particularly developing countries – should be prepared to face investors from wealthy Western countries who may be better equipped to navigate investment disputes.

Before bringing a claim (and ideally even before making the investment), investors should consider the protections afforded to them under BITs and other treaties, as well as investment laws and contracts (if any), to improve their chances of success.

Investment arbitrations are expensive, and the cost is a significant barrier to obtaining a final award. Investors should budget for hefty ICSID advances (including those due from the states if they decide not to pay), their own costs and security for costs (if ordered). States should also be mindful of the costs of defending their claims (which can be a challenge for less wealthy countries) and consider whether an application for security for costs is appropriate in the circumstances.

It is also important to consider not only the merits of the claim but the likelihood of receiving substantive damages. In about 7% of successful cases, no damages are awarded, and in 21% of cases, only 10% or less of the claimed damages are awarded. The tribunals have broad discretion to allocate costs between the parties, so even a technically “winning” party can lose by paying more costs than damages it is awarded. Given the high proportion of cases in which investors recover little or no damages, an early, realistic assessment of quantum can prevent parties from pursuing claims that are not economically viable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the 2025 statistics show that ICSID arbitration remains a popular avenue for recourse for aggrieved investors. While the overall caseload remains steady, the underlying trends highlight increasing pressures shaping modern investor-state disputes.

Against this backdrop, parties need to approach ICSID cases with realistic expectations: about the jurisdictional bases, what “success” may look like, and the cost and recovery profile of these claims.

If you would like to discuss the content of this article or need assistance with an investment claim, please contact Evgeniya Rubinina or Irina Durnova.