Glencore International A.G. v. Republic of Colombia

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: Glencore International A.G. (Switzerland) v. Republic of Colombia
Case no.: ICSID Case No. ARB/21/30
Forum and rules: ICSID Convention arbitration; ICSID Arbitration Rules of 10 April 2006; seat at ICSID, Washington, D.C.
Treaty: Colombia–Switzerland BIT (signed 17 May 2006, in force 6 October 2009)
Tribunal: Sabina Sacco (President), Bernard Hanotiau, Donald M. McRae
Sector: Coal mining (Cerrejón mine, La Puente pit, Bruno Creek diversion)
Outcome: Pending. The published documents are procedural orders only; they do not show a decision on jurisdiction, the merits or damages.

The dispute

Glencore International A.G., a Swiss company, brought ICSID proceedings against Colombia under the Colombia–Switzerland BIT. The case concerns the planned expansion of the La Puente pit of the Cerrejón coal mine in La Guajira, operated by Carbones del Cerrejón Limited. The expansion required diverting a section of the Bruno Creek. Glencore seeks monetary compensation for what it calls the "indefinite suspension" of a "fully authorized and permitted" expansion, caused by judicial measures including Judgment SU-698 of 28 November 2017 of the Constitutional Court of Colombia; the NDP materials record Glencore's main argument that Colombia's courts breached fair and equitable treatment. Colombia says these measures were needed to protect the fundamental rights of indigenous Wayuu communities. It also raised objections to jurisdiction with its Counter-Memorial and disputes the damages model.

Key holdings

Transparency regime. ICSID publishes all procedural orders, all decisions on jurisdiction and/or liability, and the award, subject to an agreed redaction procedure. Each Party must also file a public summary of its position on the merits and on jurisdiction. Colombia's request to publish pleadings, witness statements, expert reports and hearing transcripts was denied, because their publication could aggravate the dispute and inhibit candour, and the hearings are closed. PO2 ¶¶ 41–47
The Wayuu communities of La Gran Parada and Paradero were admitted as non-disputing parties under Rule 37(2). Their submission was limited to three factual issues: the importance of the Bruno Creek and the impact of the diversion; the scope and content of Judgment SU-698; and the implementation status of its orders. It could not exceed 10,000 words. The Tribunal refused submissions on legal issues because the Parties' counsel and legal experts already cover them. PO3 ¶¶ 64, 71, 89
CAJAR (Colectivo de Abogados y Abogadas José Alvear Restrepo) was not admitted. A human rights organisation's general interest in compliance in the region is not a "significant interest", but CAJAR may still represent the Communities. The petitioners' requests for access to the main case documents and for participation in the closed hearing were denied, the hearing request because Glencore objected under Rule 32(2). No costs are imposed on the Communities. PO3 ¶¶ 68–70, 81, 87–88
Glencore's application to strike parts of the NDP Submission was largely rejected. The Communities may draw legal conclusions related to the three permitted issues; otherwise the submission would be superfluous. Passages directly addressing the excluded legal issues were struck: parts of paragraphs 33 and 51, and paragraphs 52 and 53. Duplicate exhibits NDP-0002 and NDP-0005 were excluded by agreement. PO4 ¶¶ 53–56, Annex A
The revised NDP Submission is to be published on the ICSID website. It must be redacted so that it identifies the Communities but not the individuals who signed it. Publishing a limited factual submission does not carry the risks that justified withholding the Parties' pleadings. PO5 ¶¶ 22–23, 26
Glencore's application to exclude the alternative mine plans that Colombia filed with its Rejoinder (Second Weir Report) and the related evidence was denied. The plans responded in part to new arguments and evidence in Glencore's Reply, including a revised quantum model and Cerrejón's 2025 Life of Mine Plan. Some of the underlying data reached Colombia only after the Reply. Glencore was allowed to file responsive evidence by 13 October 2025. PO6 ¶¶ 36–41
Hearing organisation. The in-person hearing in Washington, D.C. is set for 10–17 November 2025. The Colombian law experts are not to be examined; instead they produce a joint statement, and counsel answer the Tribunal's questions on Colombian law. PO7 §§ III, IV.L