Traditionally, requests for bifurcation concern the separation of jurisdictional issues from the merits of the dispute.2 The division of the merits phase into liability and quantum phases is also possible in investment arbitration.3 If the issues are divided into three phases (for example, jurisdiction, merits and quantum), the proceedings are trifurcated.4 Issues can be also debifurcated.5
Kinsella, N.S. and Rubins, N. D., Arbitration Procedure, International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 346.
Vasani, B.S. and Vasani, S.Z., Bifurcation of Investment Disputes, in Yannaca-Small, Y. (ed.), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 302.
Greenwood, L., Does Bifurcation Really Promote Efficiency?, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 28(2), 2011, p. 105.
Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules – Working Paper, Volume 3, ICSID Secretariat, 2 August 2018, pp. 187-190; Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules – Working Paper #5, Volume 1, ICSID Secretariat, June 2021, pp. 295-300.
See also RWE v. Netherlands, Procedural Order No. 2 on a request to bifurcate merits claims.
Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules – Working Paper, Volume 3, ICSID Secretariat, 2 August 2018, p. 187; Canfor Corporation, Terminal Forest Products Ltd., Tembec et al. v. United States of America (Consolidated), Decision on the Place of Arbitration, Filing of a Statement of Defence and Bifurcation of the Proceedings, 23 January 2004, para. 47-48; Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedöház Vagyonkezelö Zrt. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/3, Decision on Respondent's Notice of Jurisdictional Objections and Request for Bifurcation, 8 August 2013, paras. 38-39; Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation under Article 41(2) of the ICSID Convention, 2 November 2012, paras. 26-27; Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/13, Award on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2013, paras. 33, 34; Westmoreland Mining Holdings, LLC v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/3, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 20 October 2020, para. 60; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Procedural Order No. 3 Deciding Bifurcation and Non-Bifurcation, 25 January 2013, para. 4; Bacilio Amorrortu v. Republic of Peru, PCA Case No. 2020-11, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 21 January 2021, para. 7; Orazul International España Holdings S.L. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/25, Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 7 January 2021, para. 8; Patel Engineering Limited v. The Republic of Mozambique, PCA Case No. 2020-21, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Motion for Bifurcation), 14 December 2020, para. 4; Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules – Working Paper #5, Volume 1, ICSID Secretariat, June 2021, p. 295; RWE AG and RWE Eemshaven Holding II BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/4, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 25 February 2022, paras. 25, 55.
Vasani, B.S. and Vasani, S.Z. Bifurcation of Investment Disputes, in Yannaca-Small, Y. (ed.), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 302.
Greenwood, L., Does Bifurcation Really Promote Efficiency?, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 28 (2), p. 1.
Kinsella, N.S. and Rubins, N.D., Arbitration Procedure, International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 346.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010, para. 245; OOO Manolium Processing v. The Republic of Belarus, PCA Case No. 2018-06, Decision on Bifurcation, 1 August 2018, para. 6; Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 and 12/14, Procedural Order No. 8 (Bifurcation), 22 April 2014, para. 14; The Renco Group, Inc. v. The Republic of Peru (II), PCA Case No. 2019-46, Procedural Order No. 3 (Bifurcation), 17 September 2020, paras. 2.1; Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11, Procedural Order No. 5 (Decision on Respondent’s Request to Address Quantum in a Separate Phase of the Proceeding), 6 December 2021, paras. 22-24; BSG Resources v. Guinea (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/14/22, Award, 18 May 2022, para. 265.
Commission, J. and Moloo, R., The Splitting of Issues for Separate Determination (Bifurcation/Trifurcation), Procedural Issues in International Investment Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2018.
Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (II), ICSID Case No. ADHOC/17/1, Procedural Order No. 2, Para. 41; Gemplus, S.A., SLP, S.A., and Gemplus Industrial S.A. de C.V. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/3, Award, 16 June 2010, para. 1.34; Talsud, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/4, Award, 16 June 2010, para. 1.34.
In the vast majority of cases, the request for bifurcation of jurisdictional issues is filed by respondents,6 and to lesser extent by claimants7 or by both parties per their agreement.8 Jurisdictional and admissibility issues may be also bifurcated by the tribunal proprio motu.9 In this case, the tribunal may add an appropriate provision in the procedural timetable for the scenarios that provide for bifurcation or not.10
Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/15/2, Decision on Bifurcation, 29 May 2017, paras. 3-4; Transglobal Green Energy, LLC and Transglobal Green Panama, S.A. v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/28, Procedural Order No. 2, para. 2; Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V., MEM Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2, Decision on Respondent's Application for Bifurcation, 13 June 2013, para. 39; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Procedural Order No. 2, 13 September 2013, para. 4; Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Procedural Order No. 8 regarding Decision on Bifurcation, 14 April 2014, para. 2; Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Canada, PCA Case No. 2016-13, Procedural No. 4 Decision on Bifurcation, 18 November 2016, para. 2.1; Abertis Infraestructuras, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/48, Procedural Order No. 2, 27 March 2017, para. 1; Red Eagle Exploration Limited v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/12, Decision on Bifurcation, 3 August 2020, para. 6; Orazul International España Holdings S.L. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/25, Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 7 January 2021, para. 3; Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. The Republic of Ecuador (II), PCA Case No. 2012-16, Decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 19 November 2012, para. 6; Nord Stream 2 AG v. European Union, PCA Case No. 2020-07, Procedural Order No. 4 (Decision on Request for Preliminary Phase on Jurisdiction), 31 December 2020, para. 12; Canepa Green Energy Opportunities I, S.á r.l. and Canepa Green Energy Opportunities II, S.á r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/4, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 28 August 2020, para. 4; CMC Africa Austral, LDA, CMC Muratori Cementisti CMC Di Ravenna SOC. Coop., and CMC Muratori Cementisti CMC Di Ravenna SOC. Coop. A.R.L. Maputo Branch and CMC Africa v. Republic of Mozambique, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/23, Award, 24 October 2019, para. 31; Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/26, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 7 June 2022, para. 4.
Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, Award, 12 October 2005, para. 18; Austrian Airlines v. The Slovak Republic, Final Award, 9 October 2009, paras. 37-41; The Renco Group, Inc. v. The Republic of Peru (II), PCA Case No. 2019-46, Procedural Order No. 3 (Bifurcation), 17 September 2020, para. 1.5; RWE AG and RWE Eemshaven Holding II BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/4, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 25 February 2022, paras. 15, 45.
Cases Regarding the Border Closure due to BSE Concerns v. United States of America, Award on Jurisdiction, 28 January 2008, para. 14; TCW Group, Inc and Dominion Energy Holdings, LP v. Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-06, Procedural Order No. 2, 15 August 2008, paras. 3- 3.1; Beccara and ors v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Procedural Order No. 3 (Confidentiality Order), 27 January 2010, para. 16; Commerce Group Corp. and San Sebastian Gold Mines, Inc. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/17, Award, 14 March 2011, para. 31; HICEE B.V. v. The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2009-11, Partial Award, 23 May 2011, para. 11; Abaclat and others (formerly Giovanna A. Beccara and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2011, para. 127; H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/15, The Tribunal's Decision on Respondent's Objections to Jurisdiction, 5 June 2012, paras. 7-9; Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12, Award, 7 June 2012, para. 12; Corn Products International, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/1, Decision on Responsibility, 15 January 2008, para. 20; Bosh International, Inc. and B&P, LTD Foreign Investments Enterprise v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/11, Award, 25 October 2012, para. 17; B-Mex, LLC Deana Anthone, Neil Ayervais, Douglas Black and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/16/3, Procedural Order No. 1, 4 April 2017, para. 14.2.
Commission, J., Moloo, R., The Splitting of Issues for Separate Determination (Bifurcation/Trifurcation), Procedural Issues in International Investment Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 70, 74-75; ICSID Convention, Arts. 41(2) and 44; UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 1976, Art. 24(4); UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 2010, Art. 23(3); Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010, paras. 244-245; Ömer Dede and Serdar Elhüseyni v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/22, Award, 5 September 2013, para. 9; Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/1, Decision on Article VII.2 of the Turkey-Turkmenistan Bilateral Investment Treaty, 7 May 2012, para. 1.19; Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 and 12/14, Procedural Order No. 12, para. 50; Aeroport Belbek LLC and Mr. Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2015-07, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 30 November 2015, para. 2.2.
Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Jurisdiction, 1 February 2016, para. 32; Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 and 12/14, Procedural Order No. 15, para. 36; Tennant Energy, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2018-54, Procedural Order No. 4 (Interim Measures), 27 February 2020, para. 92; ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 19.
Burimi SRL and Eagle Games SH.A v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/18, Procedural Order No. 1 and Decision on Bifurcation, 18 April 2012, para. 13.2; Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/20, Procedural Order No. 5, 29 May 2012, paras. 22-23; Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Procedural Order No. 8, 22 April 2014, paras. 13-17; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Procedural Order No. 2, 13 September 2013, paras. 11-12; Philip Morris Asia Limited v. Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Procedural Order No. 8 regarding Bifurcation of the Procedure, 14 April 2014, paras. 115-116, 122-123, 131; Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Procedural Order No. 15, 12 January 2015, para. 35; A11Y Ltd. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/1, Decision on Bifurcation, 5 October 2015, paras. 62-63; Lighthouse Corporation Pty Ltd and Lighthouse Corporation Ltd, IBC v. Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/2, Procedural Order No. 3, 8 July 2016, paras. 23-26; Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/41, Procedural Order No. 3 on Bifurcation, 11 October 2016, para. 63; The Burmilla Trust, The Josias Van Zyl Family Trust and The Josias Van Zyl v. Kingdom of Lesotho, PCA Case No. 2016-21, Procedural Order No. 1, 3 November 2016, para. 51; Abertis Infraestructuras, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/48, Procedural Order No. 2, 27 March 2017, para. 42; Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. The Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2016-17, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 21 April 2017, para. 31; Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/16, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Respondent Request for Bifurcation), 14 December 2017, paras. 100 and 111(a); Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41, Procedural Order No. 2 Decision on Bifurcation, 28 June 2018, paras. 62-64; CMC Africa Austral, LDA, CMC Muratori Cementisti CMC Di Ravenna SOC. Coop., CMC Muratori Cementisti CMC Di Ravenna SOC. Coop. A.R.L. Maputo Branch and CMC Africa and v. Republic of Mozambique, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/23, Procedural Order No. 3 (Bifurcation), 15 August 2018, para. 6; MetLife, Inc., MetLife Seguros de Retiro S.A and MetLife Servicios S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/17, Procedural Order No. 2 Decision on Bifurcation, 21 December 2018, para. 24; Bay View Group LLC and the Spalena Company LLC v. Republic of Rwanda, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/21, Procedural Order No. 2 on Bifurcation, 28 June 2019, para, 48; LSG Building Solutions GmbH and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/19, Procedural Order No. 3 on Bifurcation, 9 October 2019, paras. 37 and 59; Gran Colombia Gold Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/23, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Respondent Request for Bifurcation), 17 January 2020, para. 36; Ayat Nizar Raja Sumrain and others v. State of Kuwait, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/20, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 01 Feb 2021, para. 53; Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (II), ICSID Case No. ADHOC/17/1, Procedural Order No. 2, para. 41; Bacilio Amorrortu v. Republic of Peru, PCA Case No. 2020-11, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 21 January 2021, para. 12; Nord Stream 2 AG v. European Union, PCA Case No. 2020-07, Procedural Order No. 4 (Decision on Request for Preliminary Phase on Jurisdiction), 31 December 2020, para. 53; Patel Engineering Limited v. The Republic of Mozambique, PCA Case No. 2020-21, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Motion for Bifurcation), 14 December 2020, para. 64; Tennant Energy, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2018-54, Procedural Order No. 8 (Request for Bifurcation), 12 November 2020, para. 46; Dispute Concerning the Detention of Ukrainian Naval Vessels and Servicemen (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), PCA Case No. 2019-28, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 27 October 2020, para. 29; Westmoreland Mining Holdings, LLC v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/3, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 20 October 2020, para. 60; The Renco Group, Inc. v. The Republic of Peru (II), PCA Case No. 2019-46, Procedural Order No. 3 (Bifurcation), 17 September 2020, paras. 2.2, 2.3.; Canepa Green Energy Opportunities I, S.á r.l. and Canepa Green Energy Opportunities II, S.á r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/4, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 28 August 2020, paras. paras. 6, 68; Carlos Sastre and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 13 August 2020, para. 78; The Carlyle Group L.P., Carlyle Investment Management L.L.C., Carlyle Commodity Management L.L.C. and others v. Kingdom; LSG Building Solutions GmbH and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/19, Procedural Order No. 3 Decision on Bifurcation, 9 October 2019, para. 59; Bay View Group LLC and The Spalena Company LLC v. Republic of Rwanda, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/21, Procedural Order No. 2 on Bifurcation, 28 June 2019, paras. 37, 38; Robert Aleksandrowicz and Tomasz Częścik v. Cyprus, SCC Case No. V 2014/169, Award, 11 February 2017, para. 57; Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11, Procedural Order No. 5 (Decision on Respondent’s Request to Address Quantum in a Separate Phase of the Proceeding), 6 December 2021, para. 24; RWE AG and RWE Eemshaven Holding II BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/4, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 25 February 2022, para. 59; Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/26, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 7 June 2022.
Commission, J., Moloo, R., The Splitting of Issues for Separate Determination (Bifurcation/Trifurcation), Procedural Issues in International Investment Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 77.
Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Bifurcation under Article 41(2) of the ICSID Convention, 2 November 2012, paras. 56; Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V. and MEM Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2, Decision on Respondent’s Application for Bifurcation, 13 June 2013, paras. 49-50; Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedohaz Vagyonkezelo v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/3, Decision on Respondent's Notice of Jurisdictional Objections and Request for Bifurcation, 8 August 2013, paras. 39.1-39.2; Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Decision on Bifurcation, 21 January 2015, paras. 93-94; Orazul International España Holdings S.L. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/25, Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 7 January 2021, para. 46; Gran Colombia Gold Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/23, Decision on the Bifurcated Jurisdictional Issue, 23 November 2020, para. 157; Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11, Decision on Bifurcation and Other Procedural Matters, 12 October 2020, paras. 8-9; Red Eagle Exploration Limited v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/12, Decision on Bifurcation, 3 August 2020, paras. 64, 68; The Estate of Julio Miguel Orlandini-Agreda and Compañía Minera Orlandini Ltda. v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2018-39, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Termination, Trifurcation and Security for Costs, 9 July 2019, para. 139.
There were 115 arbitral decisions issued on bifurcation between 2000 and 2017, as far as ICSID proceedings are concerned.13 There is no full record of arbitral decisions issued on request for bifurcation in UNCITRAL proceedings due to the lack of a single registry – except for some cases whose decisions were made public.14
Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. The Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1, Award, 31 March 2010, paras. 3-4; The Renco Group, Inc. v. The Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/13/1, Procedural Order No. 1, 22 August 2013, para. 12.1; Eli Lilly and Co. v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, Procedural Order No. 1, 26 May 2014, para. 9; S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, Procedural Order No. 1, 28 May 1999, paras. 1-2; Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Government of Canada, Procedural Order No. 7, 19 January 2000, paras 1-3; United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Procedural Directions and Order of the Tribunal, 4 April 2003, A.; GAMI Investments, Inc. v. United Mexican States, Procedural Order No. 2, 22 May 2003, para. 1; Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., et al. v. United States of America, Order and Schedule Regarding Bifurcation, 26 October 2005, para. 1; Canfor Corporation v. United States of America, Decision on the Place of Arbitration, Decision on the Place of Arbitration, Filing of a Statement of Defence and Bifurcation of the Proceedings, 23 January 2004, paras. 45-54; Cases Regarding the Border Closure due to BSE Concerns v. United States of America, Award on Jurisdiction, 28 January 2008, para. 14; TCW Group, Inc and Dominion Energy Holdings, LP v. Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-06, Procedural Order No. 2, 15 August 2008, para. 3.1; William Ralph Clayton, William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon Delaware Inc. v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009-04, Procedural Order No. 3, 3 June 2009, para. 1.2; Austrian Airlines v. Slovakia, Final Award, 9 October 2009, paras. 37–41; Alps Finance and Trade AG v. Slovakia, Award, 5 March 2011, para. 61; HICEE BV. v. Slovakia, PCA Case No. 2009–11, Partial Award, 23 May 2011, para. 11; ST-AD GmbH v. Republic of Bulgaria, PCA Case No. 2011–06, Award on Jurisdiction, 18 July 2013, para. 257; International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. The United Mexican States, Procedural Order No. 4, 24 December 2003, para. 1; Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. United States of America, Procedural Order No. 2, 31 May 2005, para. 16; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 29; Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 29; Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-05/AA228, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 29; Bacilio Amorrortu v. Republic of Peru, PCA Case No. 2020-11, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 21 January 2021, para. 12; Carlos Sastre and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 13 August 2020, para. 78; The Renco Group, Inc. & Doe Run Resources, Corp. v. The Republic of Peru & Activos Mineros S.A.C., PCA Case No. 2019-47, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 29 July 2020, paras. 5.1; The Estate of Julio Miguel Orlandini-Agreda and Compañía Minera Orlandini Ltda. v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2018-39, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Termination, Trifurcation and Security for Costs, 9 July 2019, para. 152; President Allende Foundation, Victor Pey Casado and Coral Pey Grebe v. Republic of Chile, PCA Case No. 2017-30, Decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 27 June 2018, para. 118; Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2016-39, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 31 January 2018, para. 59.
Article 21(4) of the 1976 edition of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules states that “[i]n general, the arbitral tribunal should rule on a plea concerning its jurisdiction as a preliminary question,” thus creating a presumption in favour of bifurcation of jurisdictional issues15 with discretionary power to decide on the issue.16
Under the 2010 edition, arbitral tribunal has a full discretion under Article 23(3) to rule on a plea concerning its jurisdiction “either as a preliminary question or in an award on the merits”.17 The 2010 edition thus eliminated the presumption in favour of bifurcation in the jurisdictional context.18 The tribunal must exercise its authority to conduct proceedings in a manner “it considers appropriate, provided that the parties are treated with equality” and “each party is given a reasonable opportunity of presenting its case”.19
Mesa Power Group LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2012-17, Procedural Order No. 2, 18 January 2013, para. 16; President Allende Foundation, Victor Pey Casado and Coral Pey Grebe v. Republic of Chile II, PCA Case No. 2017-30 (PCA Case No. AA662), Procedural Order No. 2, 29 November 2017, para. 63; Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Government of Canada, Procedural Order No. 4 - Decision on Bifurcation, 18 November 2016, para. 4.3; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited (CUHL) v. Republic of India, Procedural Order No. 4 - Decision on the Respondent Application for Bifurcation, 19 April 2017, para. 70; Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. The United States of America, Procedural Order No. 2 (Revised), 31 May 2005, paras. 9, 12(b); Nord Stream 2 AG v. European Union, PCA Case No. 2020-07, Procedural Order No. 4 (Decision on Request for Preliminary Phase on Jurisdiction), 31 December 2020, para. 45; Aeroport Belbek LLC and Mr. Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2015-07, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 30 November 2015, para. 2.2.
Vasani, B.S. and Vasani, S.Z., Bifurcation of Investment Disputes, in Yannaca-Small, Y. (ed.), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 305.
Van Zyl and Others v. Kingdom of Lesotho, PCA Case No. 2016-21, Procedural Order No. 1, 3 November 2016, para. 43; Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Procedural Order No. 8, 14 April 2014, para. 109.
Guaracachi America, Inc. and Rurelec PLC v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2011-17, Procedural Order No. 10, 17 December 2012, para. 9; Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2016-39, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 31 January 2018, para. 38.
Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. The Republic of Ecuador (II), PCA Case No. 2012-16, Decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 19 November 2012, para. 60; Carlos Sastre and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 13 August 2020, para. 37; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-07, Procedural Order No. 4 - Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Bifurcation, 19 April 2017, paras. 71, 75.
Article 41(2) of the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Arbitration Rules grant arbitral tribunals discretion to decide on bifurcation when faced with a jurisdictional or admissibility objection.20 The tribunal may also decide any issue of jurisdiction on its own initiative at any stage of the proceeding.21 The tribunals have also considered bifurcation of other discrete issues, including quantum and merits, under the umbrella of Article 44 of the ICSID Convention.22
Rule 41(3) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules of 2006 allows the tribunal to treat the objections to jurisdiction and admissibility as a preliminary matter and to suspend the proceedings on the merits or to join the objections to the merits of the dispute.23 Neither the ICSID Convention, nor the Arbitration Rules in their iteration up until 2020 provided further guidance to the tribunals or the parties on the criteria for bifurcation.24 Recently, the newly updated ICSID Arbitration Rules of 2022 provide such criteria.25
Indeed, according to Rules 42(3) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules (2022), a party may request bifurcation and shall file such request “as soon as possible” including the “questions to be bifurcated”. The tribunal shall “fix time limits for written and oral submissions on the request for bifurcation, as required”. The Rule requires that the tribunal “issues its decision […] within 30 days after the later of the last written or oral submission on the request” leaving it to the discretion of the tribunal to “fix any time limit necessary for the further conduct of the proceeding”. The Rule also provides for the tribunal to consider whether bifurcation would reduce time and cost.26
Moreover, Rule 44 provides for preliminary objection with a request for bifurcation, whereas Rule 45 provides for preliminary objections without a request for bifurcation. This way the rules provide for a clearcut guidance for each type of preliminary objections. It modernizes the ICSID Arbitration Rules, compared to the previous version, and provides for a cost and time effective framework for the investor-state arbitration proceeding.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010, para. 245; Burimi SRL and Eagle Games SH.A v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/18, Procedural Order No. 1 and Decision on Bifurcation, 18 April 2012, para. 13.2; Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 and 12/14, Procedural Order No. 8 (Bifurcation), 22 April 2014, para. 12; Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/20, Procedural Order No. 5 (Bifurcation), 29 May 2012, para. 11; Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Decision on Bifurcation, 21 January 2015, para. 16; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/16/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Respondent’s Applications of 18 September 2017), 23 October 2017, para. 37.; Metro de Lima Línea 2 S.A. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/3, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 6 July 2021, paras. 1041-1042.
Transglobal Green Energy, LLC and Transglobal Green Panama, S.A. v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/28, Procedural Order No. 2, 21 January 2016, paras. 13-15; Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation under Article 41(2) of the ICSID Convention, 2 November 2012, paras. 29 and 56; Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Decision on Bifurcation, 21 January 2015, para. 63.
Hela Schwarz GmbH v. People's Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19, Procedural Order No.3 (Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Bifurcation), 17 December 2018, para. 73; Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V., MEM Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2, Decision on Respondent's Application for Bifurcation, 13 June 2013, para. 37; Abertis Infraestructuras, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/48, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 27 March 2017, para. 30; Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/16, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation), 14 December 2017, para. 99; MetLife, Inc., MetLife Seguros de Retiro S.A. and MetLife Servicios S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/17, Procedural Order No. 2 Decision on Bifurcation, 21 December 2018, para. 6; Rand Investments Ltd. and others v. Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8, Dissenting Opinion of Professor Marcelo G. Kohen, para. 4; Gran Colombia Gold Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/23, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Bifurcation), 17 January 2020, para. 24; Red Eagle Exploration Limited v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/12, Decision on Bifurcation, 3 August 2020, para. 40; Canepa Green Energy Opportunities I, S.á r.l. and Canepa Green Energy Opportunities II, S.á r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/4, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 28 August 2020, para. 90; Nasib Hasanov v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/44, Procedural Order No. 2 (Respondent’s Request to Address an Objection to Jurisdiction as a Preliminary Question), 26 March 2021, para. 8; Orazul International España Holdings S.L. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/25, Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 7 January 2021, para. 30; Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation), 01 June 2021, para. 16; RWE AG and RWE Eemshaven Holding II BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/4, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 25 February 2022, para. 42; Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/26, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 7 June 2022, para. 35 and 38.
Orazul International España Holdings S.L. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/25, Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 7 January 2021, para. 29; Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/16, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation), 14 December 2017, para. 99.
In deciding whether to bifurcate, tribunals mentioned principle of fairness and procedural economy,27 taking into consideration the following factors,28 which are not exhaustive:29
Guaracachi America, Inc. and Rurelec PLC v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2011-17, Procedural Order No. 10, 17 December 2012, para. 9; Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States of America, Procedural Order No. 2 (Revised), 31 May 2005, para. 11; Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2016-39, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 31 January 2018, para. 38; Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/16, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation), 14 December 2017, para. 100; The Burmilla Trust, The Josias Van Zyl Family Trust and Josias Van Zyl v. The Kingdom of Lesotho, PCA Case No. 2016-21, Procedural Order No. 1, 3 November 2016, para. 46; Lighthouse Corporation Pty Ltd and Lighthouse Corporation Ltd, IBC v. Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/2, Procedural Order No. 3, 8 July 2016, para. 19; Red Eagle Exploration Limited v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/12, Decision on Bifurcation, 3 August 2020, para. 42; Ayat Nizar Raja Sumrain and others v. State of Kuwait, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/20, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 01 Feb 2021, para. 16; Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Decision on Bifurcation, 21 January 2015, paras. 86, 89; William Ralph Clayton, William Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware, Inc. v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009-04, Procedural Order No. 19, para. 19; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-07, Procedural Order No. 4 - Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Bifurcation, 19 April 2017, para. 78; Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41, Procedural Order No. 2 Decision on Bifurcation, 28 June 2018, para. 50; MetLife, Inc., MetLife Seguros de Retiro S.A. and MetLife Servicios S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/17, Procedural Order No. 2 Decision on Bifurcation, 21 December 2018, para. 7; Westwater Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46, Procedural Order No. 2, 28 April 2020, para. 33; Orazul International España Holdings S.L. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/25, Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 7 January 2021, para. 30; Michael Anthony Lee-Chin v. Dominican Republic, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/3, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 6 March 2019, paras. 46, 47; Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 and 12/14, Procedural Order No. 12, para. 49; Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Canada, PCA Case No. 2016-13, Procedural Order No. 4 Decision on Bifurcation, 18 November 2016, para. 4.12; Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. The Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2016-17, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 21 April 2017, para. 30; Rand Investments Ltd. and others v. Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8, Procedural Order No. 3 (Bifurcation), 24 June 2019, paras. 18, 19; The Carlyle Group L.P., Carlyle Investment Management L.L.C., Carlyle Commodity Management L.L.C. and others v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/29, Procedural Order No. 4 Decision on Bifurcation, 20 January 2020, para. 68; Carlos Sastre and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 13 August 2020, para. 76; RWE AG and RWE Eemshaven Holding II BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/4, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 25 February 2022, paras. 44, 55.
The Carlyle Group L.P., Carlyle Investment Management L.L.C., Carlyle Commodity Management L.L.C. and others v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/29, Procedural Order No. 4 Decision on Bifurcation, 20 January 2020, para. 66; Tennant Energy, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2018-54, Procedural Order No. 4 (Interim Measures), 27 February 2020, para. 87; Westwater Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46, Procedural Order No. 2, 28 April 2020, para. 15; Carlos Sastre and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 13 August 2020, para. 39; Rand Investments Ltd. and others v. Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8, Procedural Order No. 3 (Bifurcation), 24 June 2019, paras. 13, 15; LSG Building Solutions GmbH and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/19, Procedural Order No. 3 Decision on Bifurcation, 9 October 2019, paras. 36, 57; Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V., MEM Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2, Decision on Respondent's Application for Bifurcation, 13 June 2013, para. 37; A11Y LTD. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/1, Procedural Order No. 2, paras. 56-58; Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2016-39, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 31 January 2018, para. 39; Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41, Procedural Order No. 2 Decision on Bifurcation, 28 June 2018, para. 49; Gran Colombia Gold Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/23, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Bifurcation), 17 January 2020, para. 25; Tennant Energy, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2018-54, Procedural Order No. 8 (Request for Bifurcation), 12 November 2020, para. 38; Hope Services LLC v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on the Request for Bifurcation), 19 October 2020, para. 29; Tennant Energy, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2018-54, Procedural Order No. 9 (Renewed Request on Bifurcation), 10 Mar 2021, para. 29.
Nord Stream 2 AG v. European Union, PCA Case No. 2020-07, Procedural Order No. 4 (Decision on Request for Preliminary Phase on Jurisdiction), 31 December 2020, para. 45; Canepa Green Energy Opportunities I, S.á r.l. and Canepa Green Energy Opportunities II, S.á r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/4, Partial Dissenting Opinion by Arbitrator Silvina González Napolitano, para. 10; Carlos Sastre and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 13 August 2020, para. 43; Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Decision on Bifurcation, 21 January 2015, para. 66; Gran Colombia Gold Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/23, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Bifurcation), 17 January 2020, para. 26; Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Procedural Order No. 8 regarding Decision on Bifurcation, 14 April 2014, para. 103.
Edmond Khudyan and Arin Capital & Investment Corp. v. Republic of Armenia, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/36, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation), 5 December 2018, para. 50; Gran Colombia Gold Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/23, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Bifurcation), 17 January 2020, para. 27; Rand Investments Ltd. and others v. Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8, Procedural Order No. 3 (Bifurcation), 24 June 2019, para. 17; Rand Investments Ltd. and others v. Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8, Dissenting Opinion of Professor Marcelo G. Kohen, para. 12; Red Eagle Exploration Limited v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/12, Decision on Bifurcation, 3 August 2020, para. 60; Canepa Green Energy Opportunities I, S.á r.l. and Canepa Green Energy Opportunities II, S.á r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/4, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 28 August 2020, paras. 79, 99; Nasib Hasanov v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/44, Procedural Order No. 2 (Respondent’s Request to Address an Objection to Jurisdiction as a Preliminary Question), 26 March 2021, para. 15; Hope Services LLC v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on the Request for Bifurcation), 19 October 2020, para. 23; RWE AG and RWE Eemshaven Holding II BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/4, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 25 February 2022, para. 44; Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/26, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 7 June 2022, para. 47-48.
Rand Investments Ltd. and others v. Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8, Procedural Order No. 3 (Bifurcation), 24 June 2019, para. 15; Carlos Sastre and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 13 August 2020, para. 45; Caratube International Oil Company LLP v. Republic of Kazakhstan (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/12, Award, 5 June 2012, para. 487; Raymond Charles Eyre and Montrose Developments (Private) Limited v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/25, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 21 February 2018, para. 30; LSG Building Solutions GmbH and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/19, Procedural Order No. 3 Decision on Bifurcation, 9 October 2019, para. 38; Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/16, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation), 14 December 2017, para. 106; Michael Anthony Lee-Chin v. Dominican Republic, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/3, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 6 March 2019, para. 49; Ayat Nizar Raja Sumrain and others v. State of Kuwait, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/20, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 1 February 2021, para. 17; Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 and 12/14, Procedural Order No. 12, para. 50; Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Decision on Bifurcation, 21 January 2015, paras. 80-83, 93; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-07, Procedural Order No. 4 - Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Bifurcation, 19 April 2017, paras. 84, 85, 86; Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2016-39, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 31 January 2018, para. 56; Nasib Hasanov v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/44, Procedural Order No. 2 (Respondent’s Request to Address an Objection to Jurisdiction as a Preliminary Question), 26 March 2021, para. 15; Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11, Procedural Order No. 5 (Decision on Respondent’s Request to Address Quantum in a Separate Phase of the Proceeding), 6 December 2021, paras. 25-27; Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/26, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 7 June 2022, para. 44; LSG Building Solutions GmbH and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Principles of Reparation, 11 July 2022, para. 21.
ICSID, Bifurcation - ICSID Convention Arbitration; Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States of America, Procedural Order No. 2, 31 May 2005, para. 12(c); Mesa Power Group LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2012–17, Procedural Order No. 2, 18 January 2013, para. 17; Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation under Article 41(2) of the ICSID Convention, 2 November 2012, para. 30; Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Procedural Order No. 8 regarding Decision on Bifurcation, 14 April 2014, para. 109; Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/41, Procedural Order No. 3 on Bifurcation, 11 October 2016, para. 56; Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. the Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2016–13, Procedural Order No. 4 - Decision on Bifurcation, 18 November 2016, para. 4.3; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-7, Procedural Order No. 4 - Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Bifurcation, 19 April 2017, paras. 76-77; Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. The Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2016-17, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 21 April 2017, para. 18; Red Eagle Exploration Limited v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/12, Decision on Bifurcation, 3 August 2020, para. 42; Patel Engineering Limited v. The Republic of Mozambique, PCA Case No. 2020-21, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Motion for Bifurcation), 14 Dec 2020, para. 61; Bacilio Amorrortu v. Republic of Peru, PCA Case No. 2020-11, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 21 Jan 2021, para. 12; Orazul International España Holdings S.L. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/25, Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 7 January 2021, paras. 36-38; Abertis Infraestructuras, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/48, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 27 March 2017, para. 40; Hela Schwarz GmbH v. People's Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19, Procedural Order No.3 (Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Bifurcation), 17 December 2018, para. 74; Hope Services LLC v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on the Request for Bifurcation), 19 October 2020, para. 25; Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11, Procedural Order No. 5 (Decision on Respondent’s Request to Address Quantum in a Separate Phase of the Proceeding), 6 December 2021, para. 23; RWE AG and RWE Eemshaven Holding II BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/4, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 25 February 2022, para. 44; Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/26, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 7 June 2022, para. 44; Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/26, Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Antolín Fernández Antuña, para. 17.
President Allende Foundation, Victor Pey Casado and Coral Pey Grebe v. Republic of Chile, PCA Case No. 2017-30, Decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, 27 June 2018, para. 106; Rand Investments Ltd. and others v. Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8, Dissenting Opinion of Professor Marcelo G. Kohen, para. 17.
Vasani, B. S., Sarah Z. Vasani, Bifurcation of Investment Disputes, in Yannaca-Small, Y. (ed.), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 309
International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. Mexico, Award, Procedural Order No. 4, 24 December 2003 para. 1; Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States of America, Procedural Order No. 2, 31 May 2005, para. 23; Burimi S.R.L. and Eagle Games S.A. v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/18, Procedural Order No. 1 and Decision on Bifurcation, 18 April 2012, para. 13.2; Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Procedural Order No. 8 regarding Decision on Bifurcation, 14 April 2014, para. 109; Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. The Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2016-17, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 21 April 2017, paras. 28, 31; Patel Engineering Limited v. The Republic of Mozambique, PCA Case No. 2020-21, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Motion for Bifurcation), 14 December 2020, paras. 65, 67; Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41, Procedural Order No. 2 Decision on Bifurcation, 28 June 2018, paras. 57, 64; The Renco Group, Inc. & Doe Run Resources, Corp. v. The Republic of Peru & Activos Mineros S.A.C., PCA Case No. 2019-47, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Bifurcation), 29 July 2020, paras. 4.3, 5.1; Edmond Khudyan and Arin Capital Investment Corp. v. Republic of Armenia, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/36, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Respondent's Request for Bifurcation), 5 December 2018, paras. 57, 59; Nord Stream 2 AG v. European Union, PCA Case No. 2020-07, Procedural Order No. 4 (Decision on Request for Preliminary Phase on Jurisdiction), 31 December 2020, para. 50; Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v. Republic of Ecuador II, PCA Case No. 2012-16, Decision on Respondent Request for Bifurcation, 19 December 2012, paras. 67-70; The Estate of Julio Miguel Orlandini-Agreda and Compañía Minera Orlandini Ltda. v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2018-39, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Termination, Trifurcation and Security for Costs, 9 July 2019, paras. 133-135; LSG Building Solutions GmbH and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/19, Procedural Order No. 3 Decision on Bifurcation, 9 October 2019, paras. 36, 57; Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/41, Procedural Order No. 3 on Bifurcation, 11 October 2016, paras. 59; 61.
Other factors are also taken into account by tribunals to decide on a bifurcation request, such as:
Some investment treaties also specify the criteria for bifurcation.38
President Allende Foundation, Victor Pey Casado and Coral Pey Grebe v. Republic of Chile, PCA Case No. 2017-30, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 29 November 2017, para. 66; RWE AG and RWE Eemshaven Holding II BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/4, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 25 February 2022, para. 50.
Tennant Energy, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2018-54, Procedural Order No. 4 (Interim Measures), 27 February 2020, paras. 88, 91; Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/16, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation), 14 December 2017, para. 15; The Estate of Julio Miguel Orlandini-Agreda and Compañía Minera Orlandini Ltda. v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2018-39, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Termination, Trifurcation and Security for Costs, 9 July 2019, para. 129; Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Decision on Bifurcation, 21 January 2015, para. 74; Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11, Decision on Bifurcation and Other Procedural Matters, 12 October 2020, paras. 3; Abertis Infraestructuras, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/48, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 27 March 2017, para. 41; President Allende Foundation, Victor Pey Casado and Coral Pey Grebe v. Republic of Chile, PCA Case No. 2017-30, Procedural Order No. 2 (Bifurcation), 29 November 2017, paras. 68, 70.
Vasani, B.S., and Vasani, S.Z., Bifurcation of Investment Disputes, in Yannaca-Small, Y., Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues, 2nd ed., 2018, pp. 302-311.
ICSID, Bifurcation - ICSID Convention Arbitration.
Commission, J., and Moloo, R., The Splitting of Issues for Separate Determination (Bifurcation/Trifurcation), Procedural Issues in International Investment Arbitration, 2018, pp. 70-83.
Greenwood, L., Does Bifurcation Really Promote Efficiency?, Journal of International Arbitration, 2011, p. 105-111.
Greenwood, L., Revisiting Bifurcation and Efficiency in International Arbitration Proceedings, Journal of International Arbitration, pp. 421 - 430.
Kinsella, S.N., and Rubins, N.D., Arbitration Procedure, in International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide, 2005, p. 346.
Already registered ?