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

Unicon v. Afghanistan, Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, July 14, 2026

14 Jul 2026
Unicon Limited v. Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Ministry of Energy and Water) (II), ICC Case No. UNC 211/ELU
View case details
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
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
Christopher R. Cooper
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Rohullah Esmati
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
Unicon Limited, Afghanistan
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is an Order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, addressing the petitioner's third motion for alternative service under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The underlying dispute relates to the enforcement of a 2023 arbitral award rendered in favor of the petitioner against the respondent, the Ministry of Energy and Water of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (MEW), arising from a World Bank-funded gas pipeline construction project.

Legal Issues and Court's Analysis

The principal legal issue concerned the permissible methods of effectuating service of process on an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(b), given the absence of diplomatic relations between the United States and Afghanistan and the unavailability of certified mail. Assuming, without deciding, that MEW qualifies as an "agency or instrumentality" rather than the foreign state itself, the Court evaluated the cascading service options under the FSIA. The Court found that service under § 1608(b)(1) and (b)(2) was infeasible due to the lack of special arrangements, authorized agents, or applicable international conventions.

Turning to § 1608(b)(3)(C), which permits service as directed by court order consistent with the law of the place where service is to be made, the Court considered the petitioner's proposal to serve MEW via email and express mail to Afghan diplomatic missions in the UAE. Relying on expert testimony regarding Afghan law, the Court determined that physical delivery by registered mail or courier requiring signed proof of receipt to a competent government office or legal representative would satisfy the statutory requirements, whereas email alone would not.

Decision

The Court granted the petitioner's motion in part, authorizing alternative service via express mail to the specified Afghan diplomatic missions, provided that the physical delivery creates reliable proof of receipt consistent with Afghan law. Furthermore, the Court mandated that all served documents must include translations into the official language of the foreign state, strictly enforcing the requirements of § 1608(b)(3).