Why mining dominates
Mining investments combine three features that make them particularly arbitration-prone: large up-front capital expenditure, long operational horizons (often 20–40 years), and political sensitivity to commodity prices and environmental concerns. When governments change tax, royalty, or environmental policy, the affected investments have already committed irreversible sunk costs.
Common claim types
Mining claims fall into a small number of recurring patterns: outright concession revocation (Crystallex, Tethyan Copper), retroactive royalty or tax measures, refusal to issue construction or environmental permits after meaningful investment (Bear Creek, Eco Oro), and indigenisation or local-equity requirements applied retroactively.
See our resource nationalism analysis for the current cycle.
Substantive analysis
Most mining awards turn on FET and indirect expropriation. Tribunals examine whether the investor's licences and assurances created legitimate expectations, whether the state's measures were proportionate to a bona fide regulatory purpose, and whether the economic impact rises to the threshold of indirect expropriation.
Critical-minerals frontier
The 2026 cycle is concentrated in critical minerals for the energy transition — lithium in the Andean triangle, copper across Latin America and Africa, cobalt in the DRC, nickel in Indonesia and the Philippines, and rare earths across multiple jurisdictions.
Where to watch
Andean Latin America (Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia), West and Southern Africa (DRC, Zambia, Mali, Burkina Faso), and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Philippines) are the most active jurisdictions. The cross-border treaty mapping for mining investors is one of the most complex in modern practice.