Multinational Corporate Clients, Sovereign Entities, NGOs, and Counsel in Cross-Border Cases

CLIENT ADVISORY MEMORANDUM

From the Desk of Senior Counsel

Subject: Key International Law and Arbitration Decisions of May 2025

Prepared for: Multinational Corporate Clients, Sovereign Entities, NGOs, and Counsel Engaged in Cross-Border Dispute Resolution

Length: Law-journal style analysis with expanded case histories and full doctrinal treatment

INTRODUCTION

This memorandum provides an extended analytic overview of five major international adjudicatory and arbitral developments from May 2025. Each case has been reconstructed using academic-style exposition, procedural details, and interpretive commentary. Collectively, these decisions illuminate current doctrinal trends in international territorial law, investor/state arbitration enforcement, arbitrator impartiality, and post-award judicial review.

As always, the memorandum is designed to assist clients in understanding the legal risks, strategic implications, and potential regulatory impacts arising from these developments.

I. GABON v. EQUATORIAL GUINEA

International Court of Justice Judgment, 19 May 2025

Territorial and Maritime Delimitation and Sovereignty over Islands

A. Procedural Background

The dispute originated in longstanding competing claims to the islands of Mbanie, Cocotiers and Conga in Corisco Bay. In 2016, the Parties executed a Special Agreement submitting the matter to the ICJ. The pleadings comprised:

• Gabon Memorial (2019)
• Equatorial Guinea Counter-Memorial (2020)
• Gabon Reply and Equatorial Guinea Rejoinder (2021)
• Oral hearings conducted in 2023 and 2024

The core legal questions included:

1. Whether the 1974 Bata Declaration constituted a binding treaty granting Gabon sovereignty.
2. Whether colonial-era treaties remained determinative for establishing title.
3. How maritime boundaries should be drawn under UNCLOS and earlier instruments.

B. Holding and Legal Reasoning

The Court held that the 1974 instrument invoked by Gabon did not constitute a treaty under Articles 2 and 11 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It therefore could not serve as a sovereign title.

Instead, the ICJ determined that the 1900 Treaty between France and Spain represented the only operative legal title. Upon independence, these titles were succeeded by the respective sovereigns (Gabon from France, Equatorial Guinea from Spain). The Court accordingly attributed sovereignty over all three islands to Equatorial Guinea and directed Gabon to remove military installations.

For maritime delimitation, the Court applied UNCLOS Articles 15, 74 and 83 and utilized a standard three-stage delimitation approach:

1. Construction of a provisional median line
2. Adjustment for relevant circumstances
3. Proportionality check relative to coastal lengths

C. Doctrinal and Practical Implications

This judgment is significant for three reasons:

1. It consolidates the increasing preference in ICJ jurisprudence for treating colonial treaties as dispositive sources of territorial title, reflecting continuity with the Burkina Faso v. Mali and Frontier Dispute line of cases.
2. It signals that post-independence administrative control (effectivites) will rarely override treaty-based titles.
3. It substantially affects potential oil and gas rights, fisheries access and security cooperation in the Gulf of Guinea.

D. Risks and Considerations for Clients

• States involved in post-colonial boundary disputes should anticipate strict judicial reliance on historic instruments.
• Extractive and energy clients should evaluate concession boundaries in light of the clarified sovereignty.
• Humanitarian and civil-society clients should note that the Court did not consider community or indigenous claims.

II. ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY AND ELECTRICITE DU RIP v. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL

ICC Arbitration Final Award (2024) upheld; Paris Court of Appeal confirmation, 13 May 2025

Rural Electrification Contract Dispute

A. Procedural History

• 2012: Senegal awarded the Claimants a 25-year concession to supply electricity to rural areas.
• 2018–2021: Pressure rose for tariff harmonization to align rural and national electricity prices. Claimants refused, citing financial impossibility.
• 2021: Senegal terminated the concession.
• 2022: Claimants commenced ICC arbitration under the contract’s dispute resolution clause.
• September 2024: ICC tribunal issued a final award finding Senegal liable for wrongful termination and awarding damages.
• November 2024: Senegal filed for annulment before the Paris Court of Appeal.
• May 2025: Senegal withdrew the annulment application. The Court of Appeal formally closed the proceedings on 13 May 2025.

B. Legal Analysis

The withdrawal has the effect of fully reinstating the ICC award. Under French arbitration law, annulment is an exceptional remedy and its withdrawal leaves no further recourse.

Key doctrinal points:

• The Court reaffirmed the pro-enforcement stance of France as a leading arbitration seat.
• The decision signals that public-policy justifications for terminating infrastructure contracts will be scrutinized strictly.
• Private investors can expect robust protection against abrupt policy shifts imposed without negotiation or compensation.

C. Implications for Clients

• Infrastructure and energy companies should negotiate arbitration clauses seated in pro-enforcement jurisdictions.
• States should implement tariff reforms through negotiated adjustments rather than unilateral termination.
• Investors may pursue asset tracing and recognition under the New York Convention if Senegal delays payment.

III. UKRAINE v. RUSSIA (NAVAL VESSELS)

Permanent Court of Arbitration Decision on Arbitrator Challenge, 6 May 2025

Allegations of Arbitrator Partiality

A. Procedural Background

This case arises under Annex VII of UNCLOS following Russia’s 2018 seizure of Ukrainian naval vessels. In 2024 Russia submitted a formal challenge seeking removal of arbitrator Judge James L. Kateka, alleging improper participation in public statements condemning Russia and potential bias.

A special ad hoc decision-making panel within the PCA reviewed the challenge.

B. Ruling

The PCA rejected the challenge after determining:

1. Prior academic or diplomatic commentary does not in itself meet the standard for evident partiality.
2. Experience in similar cases is not a ground for disqualification absent demonstrated inability to act impartially.
3. The challenge appeared tactical in nature and could disrupt the adjudicatory process.

C. Importance of the Ruling

This is a leading authority reaffirming that arbitrator impartiality must be evaluated through concrete evidence rather than mere perception. It strengthens tribunal stability and reduces incentives for delay tactics.

D. Client Considerations

• States should anticipate a high bar for arbitrator disqualification.
• Corporations involved in investor-state disputes may cite this standard to resist opportunistic challenges to arbitrators.
• Arbitration clauses should ensure diversity and depth of arbitrator experience, given that such experience does not constitute bias.

IV. WINGSTOP FRANCHISING LLC v. B.WING AND FLIGHT 83

Paris Court of Appeal, June 2025 (proceedings active during May)

Failure to Address Counterclaim and Scope of Annulment

A. Procedural Background

The tribunal issued an award in a franchise dispute arising between a U.S. franchisor (Wingstop) and French franchisees. The franchisees sought annulment in Paris on grounds that the tribunal failed to rule on their counterclaims, constituting an infra petita defect.

B. Judicial Reasoning

The Paris Court held:

• Omission to decide a counterclaim is not among the statutory annulment grounds under French arbitration law.
• The appropriate remedy is a request for a supplementary award, not annulment.
• The scope of annulment must remain narrow to preserve the autonomy of arbitral tribunals.

C. Implications for Clients

• Businesses relying on arbitration should not expect annulment based on procedural omissions.
• Parties must proactively monitor the arbitral process and request clarification or supplemental rulings before resorting to courts.
• This case strengthens Paris’s role as a reliable arbitration seat protecting finality.

V. BROADER JURISPRUDENTIAL TRENDS IN 2025: COLONIAL TREATIES AND BOUNDARY LAW

A. Overview

The Gabon Equatorial Guinea ruling reflects a larger jurisprudential tendency across 2024 and 2025 toward privileging colonial-era legal instruments as sources of territorial title. Academic commentary has critiqued this approach for reinforcing historic inequities.

B. Theoretical Consequences

• The principle of uti possidetis remains dominant even in maritime contexts.
• Effectivites and self-determination arguments remain subordinate to treaty-based title.
• Indigenous claims continue to receive minimal attention in modern boundary adjudication.

C. Strategic Advice for Clients

• Corporations involved in extractive industries should conduct title verification that includes colonial treaty succession lines.
• States considering boundary litigation must prepare archival treaty evidence as primary proof.
• NGOs should anticipate limited openings for community-based legal arguments.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLIENTS

1. For States
   Conduct treaty audits and risk assessments regarding boundary, concession, and maritime claims.
2. For Corporations and Investors
   Choose arbitration seats with strong enforcement profiles and monitor tribunal conduct for omissions before award finalization.
3. For Civil Society and Non-State Actors
   Prepare for judicial indifference to socio-cultural and indigenous claims unless incorporated into treaties or contemporary agreements.

xxx