ISDS Case Map
Turkmenistan
The Senate of Kazakhstan has ratified the Agreement on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments with Turkmenistan, aimed at creating predictable and secure conditions for investors of both countries.
Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan have officially established a free trade regime, following the successful implementation of the necessary bilateral procedures.
Prospects to diversify trade and expand investment cooperation were discussed by the representatives of the six countries – Kazakhstan, the US, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan – within TIFA.
The government of Turkmenistan has won $500 million claim brought before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes by a Turkish construction company.
Pakistan is looking to intensify trade with neighbor Afghanistan and countries in Central Asia, as it looks to diversify commerce beyond the top players, the nation’s trade adviser said.
Trade officials in the meeting of the US-Central Asia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) discussed the importance of digital trade for achieving broad-based inclusive economic growth and innovation.
The tribunal granted Turkmenistan’s application for security for costs, ordering the claimant to post US$3 million in security as a condition to the continuation of the arbitration.
The tribunal dismissed all claims against Turkmenistan brought by a Turkish investor, Lotus Holding Anonim Sirketi, under the Energy Charter Treaty and the Turkey-Turkmenistan bilateral investment treaty.
Russian and the CIS mobile operator MTS has announced that it has filed its statement of claim in the dispute with the state of Turkmenistan at the World Bank's ICSID.
Following a decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (“UNHRC“) in 2010 that a Turkish businessman had suffered violations of his human rights after being illegally convicted of economic crimes, a claim for compensation is now being pursued under the Turkey-Turkmenistan bilateral investment treaty (“BIT“). This case therefore highlights the interesting interaction between the human rights and investment protection regimes.
