Silver Bull Resources, Inc. v. United Mexican States

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: Silver Bull Resources, Inc. v. United Mexican States
Case no.: ICSID Case No. ARB/23/24
Forum and rules: ICSID Convention arbitration; ICSID Arbitration Rules in force as of 1 July 2022, as modified by NAFTA Chapter 11, Section B; place of proceeding Washington, D.C.
Treaty: NAFTA Chapter 11
Tribunal: Ian Glick KC (President), Stephen L. Drymer, Philippe Sands KC
Sector: Mining (Sierra Mojada district, State of Coahuila)
Outcome: The published texts are procedural only. An Award dated 29 May 2026 is listed, but its text is not included here, so the outcome cannot be stated. The Claimant's proposal to disqualify Philippe Sands was dismissed on 21 October 2024.

The dispute

Silver Bull Resources, Inc. brought a NAFTA Chapter 11 claim against Mexico through ICSID. The claim concerns a mining investment in the Sierra Mojada district in the State of Coahuila, where the cooperative Mineros Norteños had exercised a right to protest. The Claimant financed its claims with third-party funding. The published documents do not set out the measures complained of, the treaty provisions invoked or Mexico's defences, beyond the fact that the hearing covered both jurisdiction and merits.

Key holdings

The disqualification proposal was timely. Sands made his Declaration on Costs in Eco Oro v. Colombia on 4 April 2024, but it was published only on 1 August 2024. The proposal of 20 August 2024 was therefore filed within 21 days under Arbitration Rule 22(1). Decision on Disqualification ¶ 46
The test is objective: would a reasonable third party, knowing all the relevant facts, have justifiable doubts about the arbitrator's impartiality or independence? Here that third party reads the whole Declaration in the context of the Eco Oro award, aware that third-party funding is a matter of open debate. Decision on Disqualification ¶¶ 49–50
The proposal was dismissed. Read fairly, the Declaration shows no bias or predisposition against funded parties in general. Sands addressed risks of the funding system and the facts of Eco Oro, and accepted that funding may be justified. He said nothing about Silver Bull or its finances. Decision on Disqualification ¶¶ 62–64, 66–67
There was no prejudgment of costs. Sands argued only that tribunals should be able to make costs orders against funders, not that they should always do so. Such orders are not currently available in ICSID proceedings, so the issue cannot arise in this arbitration. Decision on Disqualification ¶ 65
Respondent's witness Lorenzo Fraire Hernández lacked a passport and a US visa. The Tribunal ordered him to testify remotely, but from a neutral location in Mexico City rather than the Ministry of the Economy's offices. Mexico was to pay his travel and accommodation expenses, without prejudice to the final allocation of costs. PO4 ¶¶ 11, 14–16
The Tribunal rejected an application by Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, AC to file an amicus submission under Arbitration Rule 67. The application was generic, showed no significant interest and no perspective different from Mexico's, and did not disclose any affiliations. PO6 ¶¶ 10–15