PPP arbitration
Most infrastructure disputes arise from public-private partnerships and long-term concession contracts. When host states terminate, modify, or fail to perform under these contracts, foreign investors typically pursue treaty arbitration alongside or instead of contractual remedies.
Water disputes
Water and wastewater concessions have produced disproportionately high-profile cases: Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia, Vivendi v. Argentina, Suez v. Argentina. These cases sit at the intersection of investment protection and fundamental public-interest concerns over water access and affordability.
Umbrella clauses
Where the relevant treaty contains an umbrella clause, contractual breaches can be elevated to treaty breaches. Tribunals have applied this elevating effect variably; the scope of umbrella clauses remains contested.
Substantive analysis
Infrastructure claims combine expropriation, FET, and (where applicable) umbrella clause analyses. The fact-intensive nature of concession performance disputes makes documentary discovery and expert evidence particularly central.
Where to watch
Latin America (Peru, Colombia, Argentina) and Southeast Asia continue to generate infrastructure disputes, particularly in toll-roads, ports, and airports.
How can you spot infrastructure disputes early?
Infrastructure disputes usually start inside a contract with the state. A toll or tariff is frozen, a concession is terminated early, payments under a public-private partnership stop, or a new government reopens a deal its predecessor signed. These are public acts, but they are reported locally and rarely mention a treaty.
The investor then has time to negotiate. Roughly nine in ten investment treaties require a cooling-off period after the first written notice, most often six months, and concession contracts add renegotiation clauses of their own. Counsel is normally chosen during that period, not after a filing.
DSPT Finder is an AI tool that sources international arbitration leads. It watches for government measures against foreign-owned roads, ports, airports, water and power projects in 159+ countries, giving infrastructure practices early warning of investment treaty disputes and an early start on business development.
Frequently asked questions
What causes most infrastructure investment disputes?
Most infrastructure disputes arise from public-private partnerships and long-term concession contracts. When host states terminate, modify, or fail to perform under these contracts, foreign investors typically pursue treaty arbitration alongside or instead of contractual remedies.
Why are water concession disputes so prominent?
Water and wastewater concessions have produced disproportionately high-profile cases such as Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia, Vivendi v. Argentina, and Suez v. Argentina. These cases sit at the intersection of investment protection and fundamental public-interest concerns over water access and affordability.
How do umbrella clauses affect infrastructure claims?
Where the relevant treaty contains an umbrella clause, contractual breaches can be elevated to treaty breaches. Tribunals have applied this elevating effect variably, and the scope of umbrella clauses remains contested.
Where are infrastructure disputes most active?
Latin America (Peru, Colombia, Argentina) and Southeast Asia continue to generate infrastructure disputes, particularly in toll-roads, ports, and airports.