ICSID Investment Arbitration in Bangladesh 2026: Treaties, Cases and Investor Protection

ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh: the 2026 position

ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh has faced is no longer a footnote to the country's investment story. Bangladesh has been an ICSID Contracting State since 26 April 1980, UNCTAD records 34 bilateral investment treaties signed by it, and since late 2025 it has been defending a treaty claim brought by the S Alam family under the 2004 Singapore treaty.[1] [3] [4] In January 2026 Bangladeshi officials also received the result of the long-running Niko arbitration over the Chattak gas blowouts.[11]

This guide is about the investor-state layer: which treaties protect whom, what those treaties promise, how ICSID works, what the Bangladesh cases teach and how to structure an investment so that the protection is there when it is needed. The domestic investment framework, commercial arbitration and the enforcement of commercial awards are covered in separate TRW guides, linked where relevant.

Summary: A foreign investor in Bangladesh can bring an international claim against the state only if a treaty in force, or a contract with a state entity, contains the state's consent to arbitration. Bangladesh has 25 bilateral investment treaties in force, most offering ICSID arbitration after a negotiation period of three or six months. The Foreign Private Investment (Promotion and Protection) Act 1980 promises fair treatment, compensation for expropriation and free transfers, but gives no route to international arbitration. Access to ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh offers is therefore a structuring decision, taken before money is committed.

Key point: Treaty protection follows the investor's nationality on the dates the treaty and the ICSID Convention fix. Article 25(2)(a) of the Convention excludes an individual who also holds the host state's nationality on the date of consent or registration, and a holding company set up after a dispute is foreseeable invites a jurisdictional fight. Plan the structure at entry, not when the regulator writes.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

Three layers of protection for foreign investors in Bangladesh

A foreign investor's legal protection in Bangladesh comes from three sources, and each has its own forum. Domestic statutes, principally the Foreign Private Investment (Promotion and Protection) Act 1980, set out guarantees enforceable, if at all, in Bangladeshi courts.[8] Contracts with state entities, such as production-sharing, power purchase or construction contracts, usually carry their own arbitration clause. Investment treaties sit above both: they are obligations of the state under international law, and most give the investor a direct right to sue the state before an international tribunal.[5] [6]

The layers interact. A contract breach is ordinarily a contract claim for the contract forum. It becomes a treaty claim only where the state's conduct also breaches a treaty standard, or where an umbrella clause elevates the state's contractual commitments to treaty obligations. The Saipem case, discussed below, shows the bridge in practice: a commercial construction dispute became a treaty expropriation claim because the Bangladeshi courts frustrated an ICC arbitration.[10]

The domestic regime, sector caps and approvals are mapped in our guide to foreign investment law in Bangladesh. This article concentrates on ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh treaties and state contracts make available, which is where a sophisticated investor's real downside protection lies.

Bangladesh's bilateral investment treaty network in 2026

UNCTAD's Investment Policy Hub records 34 bilateral investment treaties signed by Bangladesh. Twenty-five are in force, seven are signed but not in force, and two have been terminated.[3] The signed-only treaties are those with Pakistan (1995), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (1999), Viet Nam (2005), Belarus (2012), Cambodia (2014), Bahrain (2015) and Kuwait (2016).[3] A treaty that has not entered into force gives no protection, however recent or well publicised its signature.

The two terminated treaties were replaced rather than abandoned. The 1987 treaty with Türkiye ended on 20 May 2019, the day the 2012 treaty entered into force, and UNCTAD lists the 1988 Thailand treaty as terminated alongside the 2002 Thailand treaty now in force.[3] Bangladesh has not followed the wave of unilateral terminations seen in parts of South Asia; its oldest treaties remain live.

The key treaties

The treaties most often relevant to inbound capital, with dates from UNCTAD, are:[3]

• United Kingdom: signed and in force on 19 June 1980, Bangladesh's first BIT.
• Germany: signed 6 May 1981, in force 14 September 1986.
• United States: signed 12 March 1986, in force 25 July 1989.
• Italy: signed 20 March 1990, in force 20 September 1994, the treaty behind Saipem.
• Netherlands: signed 1 November 1994, in force 1 June 1996.
• China: signed 12 September 1996, in force 25 March 1997.
• Japan: signed 10 November 1998, in force 25 August 1999.
• Singapore: signed 24 June 2004, in force 19 November 2004, the treaty behind the Alam claim.
• India: signed 9 February 2009, in force 7 July 2011.
• United Arab Emirates: signed 17 January 2011, in force 5 May 2013.

Others in force cover Belgium-Luxembourg, France, Romania, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Poland, the Philippines, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Switzerland, Austria, Iran, Thailand, Denmark and Türkiye.[3]

The 2026 addition: Hong Kong

On 9 September 2026 Bangladesh and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region signed an Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement at the Belt and Road Summit in Hong Kong. Commerce Minister Khandakar Abdul Muktadir signed for Bangladesh. Hong Kong is Bangladesh's seventh-largest source of foreign direct investment, contributing US$122 million in 2025.[14] No ratification or entry-into-force date had been reported at signature, so Hong Kong-incorporated holding companies should not yet assume protection.[14]

The table compares three of the treaties most often used for structuring. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

What a bilateral investment treaty protects in practice

Bangladesh's treaties follow the classic European and US models of their era. They are short, broadly drafted and investor-friendly, without the carve-outs and interpretive notes found in post-2015 treaties. The standards below are the ones a tribunal would apply in any ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh faces under these instruments.

Fair and equitable treatment

The UK treaty requires that investments "shall at all times be accorded fair and equitable treatment", and the US treaty uses the same words.[5] [6] The Singapore treaty speaks of "equitable treatment".[7] None defines the standard. Tribunals generally read it to protect against arbitrary or grossly unfair conduct, denial of due process, lack of transparency and the frustration of specific assurances on which the investor relied. It is the standard most often pleaded because it catches regulatory conduct that falls short of a taking.

Full protection and security

The UK and US treaties require investments to "enjoy full protection and security"; the Singapore treaty promises "full and adequate protection and security".[5] [6] [7] The core of the standard is physical protection: the state must take reasonable steps to protect the investor's people and assets from violence, including by third parties. Some tribunals extend it to legal security. Separately, the UK treaty grants treatment no less favourable than nationals receive for losses from war, revolution, riot or national emergency, and restitution or adequate compensation where the state's forces requisition or destroy property.[5]

Expropriation

Every Bangladesh treaty permits expropriation only on conditions. The UK treaty requires a public purpose and "prompt, adequate and effective compensation" equal to the full value immediately before the expropriation became known, and extends protection to shareholdings in local companies.[5] The US treaty sets compensation at fair market value.[6] The Singapore treaty adds non-discrimination and lets the investor seek review of the measure or the valuation before a host-state judicial or independent body.[7] Indirect expropriation, where the investor keeps title but loses the value, is the version that matters most; Saipem was decided on that basis.[4]

The umbrella clause

Both the UK and US treaties oblige each state to "observe any obligation" it has entered into with regard to investments.[5] [6] This is the umbrella clause. Its reach depends on the tribunal: some treat any breach by the state of a contract with the investor as a treaty breach; others require the state to have acted in its sovereign capacity, or decline to elevate contracts signed by separate state-owned entities. For an investor whose project rests on a concession, power purchase agreement or production-sharing contract, the clause can still be the difference between a contract claim against a state-owned company and a treaty claim against the state.

Most-favoured-nation and national treatment

The UK treaty prohibits treatment less favourable than that given to investors of any third state; it contains no general national treatment clause.[5] The US treaty grants the better of national and most-favoured-nation treatment.[6] The Singapore treaty gives MFN treatment, excludes benefits from customs unions and free trade areas, and carves taxation out entirely.[7] Investors sometimes use MFN to import a better substantive standard from another Bangladesh treaty; whether it can import dispute settlement terms is contested and treaty-specific.

Free transfer of funds

Transfer clauses matter acutely in Bangladesh. The US treaty requires transfers "to be made freely and without delay".[6] The Singapore treaty guarantees free, non-discriminatory transfer of capital and returns in convertible currency without undue delay.[7] The UK treaty guarantees free transfer but subject to "exceptional financial or economic circumstances".[5] That difference is relevant whenever repatriation is slowed by foreign-exchange shortages, as it was from 2022.[13]

How ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh cases work

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes is part of the World Bank Group. ICSID's own register shows that Bangladesh signed the ICSID Convention on 20 November 1979, deposited its ratification on 27 March 1980 and became a Contracting State on 26 April 1980. As of 17 July 2026, 166 states had signed the Convention and 159 had ratified it.[1]

Jurisdiction: Article 25

ICSID jurisdiction extends to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment between a Contracting State, or a designated constituent subdivision or agency, and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties consent in writing to submit to the Centre. Once given, consent cannot be withdrawn unilaterally.[2] Ratification alone is not consent. Bangladesh's consent comes from a treaty offer that the investor accepts by filing, or from an ICSID clause in a contract. Consent by a state agency requires the state's approval unless the state notifies ICSID that none is needed.[2]

Nationality rules

An individual claimant must hold the nationality of another Contracting State on two dates, the date of consent and the date the request is registered, and must not also hold the host state's nationality on either date.[2] A company qualifies if it has another Contracting State's nationality on the date of consent; a Bangladeshi-incorporated company can qualify only if, because of foreign control, the parties have agreed to treat it as foreign.[2] These rules decide many cases before the merits are reached.

Exclusivity, diplomatic protection and annulment

Consent to ICSID arbitration is, unless otherwise stated, consent to the exclusion of any other remedy, though a state may require local remedies to be exhausted first.[2] Once a dispute is submitted, the investor's home state may not give diplomatic protection or bring its own international claim, unless the host state fails to comply with the award.[2] There is no appeal. Article 52 allows annulment by an ad hoc committee on five narrow grounds, such as a manifest excess of powers or a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure, on an application made within 120 days of the award.[2]

Recognition, enforcement and immunity

Every Contracting State must recognise an ICSID award as binding and enforce its pecuniary obligations as if it were a final judgment of its own courts.[2] That is the system's great advantage: no New York Convention defences and no review by national courts. Article 55 preserves the law on state immunity from execution, so collecting against a state still means finding commercial assets that are not immune.[2] The US Government reports that Bangladesh has challenged several ICSID rulings with which it disagreed, so collection should be planned rather than assumed.[13]

ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh cases: Saipem, Niko and Alam

The public record of ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh has been party to is short but instructive. UNCTAD lists two treaty cases with Bangladesh as respondent, Saipem and Alam, and the Niko disputes ran at ICSID on a contractual basis against two state-owned companies.[4] [11]

Saipem v Bangladesh (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7)

Saipem, an Italian contractor, built a gas pipeline for Petrobangla under a contract providing for ICC arbitration in Dhaka. During that arbitration, Petrobangla persuaded a Bangladeshi court to revoke the tribunal's authority under the Arbitration Act 1940. The tribunal continued and found for Saipem, and the High Court Division then treated the award as a nullity.[10] Saipem turned to ICSID under the 1990 Italy treaty, whose arbitration clause reached only expropriation claims.[10]

In its decision on jurisdiction of 21 March 2007 the tribunal held that Saipem's contractual rights, as crystallised in the ICC award, were a protected investment.[4] [10] In its award of 30 June 2009 it found that the courts had abused their supervisory jurisdiction and breached Article II(1) of the New York Convention, and that this amounted to an indirect expropriation. Saipem claimed US$12.5 million and was awarded US$6.3 million.[4] [10] Its lessons for seat selection are discussed in our note on ICC arbitration in Bangladesh.

The Niko arbitrations with BAPEX and Petrobangla

Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd, the local subsidiary of a Canadian group, began ICSID proceedings in 2010 against BAPEX and Petrobangla (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11) over the 2005 blowouts at the Chattak gas field, with a parallel case over payment for gas delivered that ended in a separate award in 2021.[11] These were contract cases. In 2013 the tribunals accepted jurisdiction over Niko and BAPEX under the joint venture agreement, but not over Petrobangla, which was not a party to it, and declined jurisdiction over the Government of Bangladesh.[11]

Bangladesh then argued that the contracts were tainted by corruption. Niko's Canadian parent had pleaded guilty in Canada to bribing Bangladesh's energy minister in 2005, but in 2019 the tribunals found no proof that the bribery influenced the procurement of the joint venture or gas purchase agreements, which therefore remained binding.[11] In 2020 Niko was held liable for the first blowout for breaching its prudent-operator obligation, but not for the second.[11]

The final award of 18 December 2025 ordered Niko to pay US$21,382,985 to BAPEX and the state, covering lost gas and the cost of carbon sequestration through afforestation, plus BDT 50,062,500 for villagers' losses, all with compound interest. The tribunal limited the gas-loss award partly because BAPEX's own approval conditions had blocked mitigation measures.[11] The award is a reminder that ICSID tribunals award proven, causally linked loss, not the figure in the headlines.

Alam and others v Bangladesh (ICSID Case No. ARB/25/52)

The first treaty claim against Bangladesh since Saipem was registered in 2025. Mohammed Saiful Alam, founder of the S Alam Group, and members of his family invoke the 2004 Singapore treaty.[4] They renounced Bangladeshi citizenship in 2020 and became Singaporean citizens between 2021 and 2023. They allege that asset seizures, frozen bank accounts, investigations and a media campaign after August 2024 breached Bangladesh's treaty obligations, and they also invoke the 1980 Act.[12]

Bangladesh's position is that it is recovering laundered money; the Governor of Bangladesh Bank has said the family moved nearly US$12 billion abroad. In early 2026 the Government appointed White & Case at US$1,250 an hour to defend the claim.[12] The case is pending.[4] Nationality will be contested: Article 25(2)(a) of the Convention looks at nationality on the dates of consent and registration, and the Singapore treaty covers only investments made in accordance with Bangladeshi law.[2] [7]

What the cases teach

• Court conduct is state conduct. Saipem holds the state responsible for domestic courts that frustrate an agreed arbitration.[10]
• Contract clauses bind only signatories. In Niko, Petrobangla and the Government were outside the joint venture tribunal's reach.[11]
• Corruption defences need proof of influence. A criminal conviction did not void the contracts without proof that the bribe procured them.[11]
• Nationality is a threshold issue. Alam will test changes of nationality close to a dispute.[12]

UNCITRAL, other forums and state-to-state arbitration

ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh treaties provide for is not the only route. Where the investor's home state is not an ICSID Contracting State, the US treaty consents to the ICSID Additional Facility.[6] Treaties differ in what they offer: some add ad hoc arbitration, usually under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and some limit arbitration to particular questions; the Italy treaty, for example, allowed only expropriation claims.[10] Every treaty must be read for its own menu. UNCTAD records no UNCITRAL treaty case against Bangladesh: both known treaty claims were brought at ICSID.[4]

An UNCITRAL award is not an ICSID award. It is enforced under the New York Convention, can be challenged in the courts of the seat and faces the usual refusal grounds. Investors with a choice usually prefer ICSID, and the commercial-award route is explained in our guide to foreign arbitral award enforcement in Bangladesh.

State-to-state arbitration

Every Bangladesh treaty also provides for disputes between the two states over the treaty's interpretation or application. The UK treaty requires diplomatic settlement first, then binding arbitration on either party's request.[5] The Singapore treaty provides for an ad hoc tribunal, with the President of the International Court of Justice appointing members if a state fails to act.[7] State-to-state proceedings are rare and slow, and the investor does not control them. Their practical value is as diplomatic leverage, and the UK treaty bars diplomatic pursuit of a dispute already before ICSID unless the state fails to honour the award.[5]

The 1980 Act and the Invest Bangladesh Act 2026

The Foreign Private Investment (Promotion and Protection) Act 1980 reads like a short investment treaty. Section 4 promises fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security. Section 5 bars unilateral adverse changes to the terms of a sanction, permission or licence and promises national treatment in applying rules. Section 7 permits expropriation only for a public purpose against adequate compensation at market value, paid expeditiously and freely transferable. Section 8 guarantees transfer of capital and returns, subject to the Government's rights in "exceptional financial and economic difficulties".[8]

Its limits are equally important. Section 2 excludes investment by foreign governments and their agencies.[8] The Act has no dispute settlement clause and no consent to international arbitration, so it cannot by itself found an ICSID claim; it is enforced through writ petitions or suits in Bangladesh. Claimants nonetheless plead it in treaty cases, as the Alam family has, because a breach of host-state law can support a fair and equitable treatment or umbrella clause argument.[12]

What the 2026 Act adds, and does not

The Invest Bangladesh Act 2026 merged BIDA, BEZA, the Hi-Tech Park Authority and the PPP Authority into the Invest Bangladesh Authority, with a single digital platform for approvals.[9] It is an institutional statute. It contains no definition of "investment" or "investor", sets no general standards on national treatment, expropriation, compensation or transfers, creates no independent grievance mechanism and does not explain its relationship with the 1980 Act, which it leaves in force.[9] Registration under it still matters for treaty purposes, because several treaties protect only investments made in accordance with host-state law.[7] The new structure is analysed in our note on the Invest Bangladesh Act 2026.

Practical challenges for foreign investors and how to mitigate them

Most foreign investors in Bangladesh never need a treaty claim. The difficulties they face are operational, and the right response is usually contractual and procedural. But those same difficulties are what turn into ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh disputes when they escalate, so they belong in any assessment of treaty protection.

Bureaucracy and regulatory uncertainty

The US Government's 2025 Investment Climate Statement describes corruption as a serious impediment, says regulations are often unclear, inconsistent or unpublished, and attributes the incomplete rollout of one-stop services to corruption and excessive bureaucracy.[13] Mitigation means recording every approval, incentive and condition in writing, in the registration or licence itself. Section 5 of the 1980 Act protects the terms of a sanction or licence, and a treaty tribunal will look for documented assurances when assessing legitimate expectations.[8]

Foreign exchange and repatriation

Gross reserves fell from US$48 billion in August 2021 to below US$20 billion in 2024, and the taka moved from 86 to 121 per US dollar between mid-2022 and April 2025. The Government moved to slow or block profit repatriation, and state-owned enterprises delayed foreign-currency payments; some limits were later eased, but some US companies continued to report problems.[13] The current rules are covered in our guides to capital repatriation and foreign exchange regulations. Treaty transfer clauses are stronger than section 8 of the 1980 Act, but their exceptions vary.

Contract enforcement and the courts

The same report describes dispute timelines as unpredictable, says courts have little ability to enforce their decisions, and observes that arbitration results are unevenly enforced by courts that appear to show a bias against foreign investors.[13] The commercial answer is a well-drafted arbitration clause with a neutral seat, discussed in our guide to international commercial arbitration in Bangladesh, backed by treaty protection if courts interfere, as they did in Saipem.[10] Domestic options are covered in our note on contract enforcement in Bangladesh.

Policy shifts after 2024

Changes of government bring changes of policy. After August 2024 the interim government pursued money-laundering investigations and asset recovery against business groups associated with the previous regime, which led directly to the Alam claim.[12] It also reduced the number of special economic zones to ten in late 2024.[13] Genuine public-interest regulation applied without discrimination and with due process rarely breaches a treaty. Measures that target a particular investor, reverse specific commitments or deny a hearing are a different matter, and they are what treaty standards exist to police.

Structuring for treaty protection

Treaty protection is a feature of the corporate structure, and every viable ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh claim starts with one. It is cheap to build in at entry and difficult or impossible to add later. The questions below should be answered before capital is committed.

Choose a treaty that is in force and fit for purpose

Start from the investor's natural home and the jurisdictions where it already has substance. Confirm that the treaty is in force, not merely signed, and read its definition of investment, its substantive standards, its exceptions and its dispute clause.[3] The UK treaty offers an umbrella clause and ICSID after three months; the US treaty adds full national treatment and an express ban on arbitrary and discriminatory measures; the Singapore treaty has no umbrella clause and carves out tax.[5] [6] [7]

Get the timing right

Restructuring once a dispute is foreseeable invites an abuse-of-process objection, and ICSID's nationality rules apply on fixed dates.[2] An individual who keeps Bangladeshi nationality cannot bring an ICSID claim against Bangladesh, whatever second passport he holds. Corporate structures should be in place, and documented, well before any measure is contemplated.

Give the holding company substance

The US treaty lets each state deny treaty benefits to a company controlled by third-country nationals, after consultation.[6] Even where no denial-of-benefits clause exists, a tribunal will look harder at a shell. Real management, accounts and decision-making in the treaty state make the structure defensible.

Make the investment lawfully

The Singapore treaty covers only investments made in accordance with Bangladesh's laws, regulations and national policies, and ties Bangladesh's protection to its domestic legislation.[7] Register the investment, bring capital in through banking channels and keep the paper trail. An investment made in breach of local law may fall outside the treaty altogether.

Add contractual consent where the state is a counterparty

Where the counterparty is a ministry or state-owned enterprise, negotiate an ICSID clause, a waiver of immunity and, where possible, a guarantee from the Government itself. In Niko, the absence of the Government and Petrobangla from the joint venture agreement narrowed what the tribunal could decide.[11] Agency consent also requires state approval under Article 25(3) unless Bangladesh has waived it.[2]

Mind the fork in the road

The US treaty bars arbitration if the investor has already taken the dispute to Bangladeshi courts or administrative tribunals.[6] A writ petition filed in haste can cost the treaty claim. Take treaty advice before litigating locally.

Bangladeshi investors abroad

The treaties are reciprocal. A Bangladeshi company investing in the United Kingdom, Singapore, India or another partner has the same rights against that state; the UK treaty defines Bangladeshi companies as those incorporated or registered under Bangladeshi law.[5] Bangladeshi groups expanding abroad should run the same analysis, and our public international law practice reviews treaty eligibility at the structuring stage.

Bringing or defending an ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh claim

An investor-state case runs on a longer clock than commercial arbitration. The Niko cases took more than fifteen years from filing to final award.[11] The sequence below applies whether the investor is claiming or the state is defending.

Swipe or scroll →

The cooling-off period is mandatory. The UK treaty requires three months of attempted settlement, and the US and Singapore treaties require six.[5] [6] [7] A notice of dispute should identify the investor, the investment, the measures, the treaty provisions and the relief, and should be served on the head of government and the relevant ministries. Bangladesh's practice in Alam shows that the state will retain international counsel and contest jurisdiction.[12]

The institutions that matter at each stage are summarised below.

For the state and state-owned companies, the lessons run the other way. Participate from the start, appoint an arbitrator, preserve documents and evaluate settlement early. Interest runs at compound rates, as the Niko award shows, and an ICSID award cannot be resisted in national courts the way a commercial award can.[2] [11] Our international arbitration practice advises investors and state entities on notices, jurisdiction and treaty strategy.

ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh: what to watch in 2026 and 2027

• The Alam jurisdiction phase. The first contested treaty claim against Bangladesh since Saipem will test nationality change and legality defences.[4] [12]
• Hong Kong ratification. Entry into force of the September 2026 agreement would add a major holding-company jurisdiction to the network.[14]
• A modern model treaty. Commentators have called for a consolidated investment code alongside the 2026 Act; any new model treaty would reshape future negotiations.[9]
• Repatriation practice. Whether foreign-exchange delays recur will decide how often transfer clauses are tested.[13]

The elected government that took office after the February 2026 elections inherits both the cases and the treaty network. For investors weighing entry, our guide to Bangladesh investment opportunities for foreigners sets out the sectors; this guide sets out how to protect what is built there.

Frequently asked questions

Is Bangladesh a member of ICSID?

Yes. Bangladesh signed the ICSID Convention on 20 November 1979, ratified it on 27 March 1980 and has been a Contracting State since 26 April 1980, so ICSID investment arbitration Bangladesh claims are possible wherever a treaty or contract supplies consent.[1]

How many bilateral investment treaties does Bangladesh have?

UNCTAD lists 34: 25 in force, seven signed but not in force and two terminated. A further agreement with Hong Kong was signed on 9 September 2026.[3] [14]

Can I bring an ICSID claim under the 1980 Act alone?

No. The Foreign Private Investment (Promotion and Protection) Act 1980 contains no consent to international arbitration. ICSID jurisdiction requires a treaty in force or a written ICSID clause in a contract with the state or an approved agency.[2] [8]

What happened in Saipem v Bangladesh?

Bangladeshi courts revoked an ICC tribunal's authority and treated its award as a nullity. An ICSID tribunal held in 2009 that this was an indirect expropriation under the Italy treaty and awarded US$6.3 million.[4] [10]

Who won the Niko arbitration?

BAPEX and the state, on the blowout claim. Niko was held liable for the first Chattak blowout and ordered on 18 December 2025 to pay US$21,382,985 plus BDT 50,062,500 for villagers, with compound interest.[11]

What is the S Alam ICSID case about?

Mohammed Saiful Alam and his family, now Singaporean citizens, claim under the 2004 Singapore treaty that asset seizures, account freezes and investigations after August 2024 breached Bangladesh's obligations. The case is pending.[4] [12]

How long must I wait before filing a treaty claim?

It depends on the treaty: three months under the UK treaty, and six months under the US and Singapore treaties.[5] [6] [7]

Can an ICSID award against Bangladesh be appealed?

No. Either party may seek annulment by an ad hoc committee on five narrow grounds, within 120 days of the award, but there is no appeal on the merits.[2]

Does the Invest Bangladesh Act 2026 give investors new protections?

Not substantive ones. It created the Invest Bangladesh Authority and a single digital platform, but sets no standards on expropriation, compensation or transfers and leaves the 1980 Act in force.[9]

Can a dual national bring an ICSID claim against Bangladesh?

Not if the person also held Bangladeshi nationality on the date of consent or the date the request was registered. Article 25(2)(a) of the ICSID Convention excludes such claimants.[2]