Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

AES v. Argentina, Petition to Enforce Arbitration Award, August 4, 2025

4 Aug 2025
AES Corporation v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17 
View case details
Petition to Enforce Arbitration Award
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Petition to Enforce Arbitration Award
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
James M. Hosking, Caline Mouawad, Elliot Friedman, Samuel E. Prevatt, Joseph Spadafore, Andreas A. Frischknecht, Maria Victoria Abut
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
AES Corporation, Chaffetz Lindsey, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Dechert, Wordstone Dispute Resolution, Argentina
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Petition to Enforce Arbitration Award
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Petition to Recognize and Enforce an ICSID Arbitration Award filed by AES Corporation against the Argentine Republic in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Petitioner seeks to enforce a May 30, 2025 ICSID award rendered in its favor, which found Argentina in breach of the fair and equitable treatment and non-impairment standards under the Argentina-U.S. Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).

Legal Issues and Petitioner's Positions

The Petitioner asserts that the District Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a), arguing that Argentina is not entitled to sovereign immunity due to the FSIA's implied waiver and arbitral award exceptions (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1) and (6)). The Petitioner further relies on 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, which grants federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over actions to enforce ICSID awards and mandates that such awards be given the same full faith and credit as a final judgment of a state court.

Anticipating potential defenses, the Petitioner emphasizes that under Article 53(1) of the ICSID Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the Court is strictly precluded from entertaining any substantive challenges or collateral attacks on the merits of the arbitral award. The Petitioner notes that the exclusive remedy for challenging an ICSID award is through the Convention's annulment mechanism, which Argentina has not pursued.

Relief Sought

The Petitioner requests the entry of an order recognizing and enforcing the ICSID award in its entirety. Specifically, the Petitioner seeks judgment for the unpaid damages of $715,900,000, legal fees of $15,807,955.30, and arbitration costs of $1,273,176.52, alongside applicable pre-award and post-judgment interest.