ICSID Tribunal Dismisses Silver Bull Arbitration Claim Against Mexico
Stories are grouped across languages, rewritten into a fixed editorial format, and linked to original sources. How we report.
TL;DR
- ICSID tribunal unanimously dismissed Silver Bull Resources' claim against Mexico.
- Silver Bull sought over $315 million for a blocked mining project.
- Tribunal found lack of jurisdiction and full inadmissibility of claims.
- Silver Bull must pay Mexico's costs and legal expenses.
Overview
On 29 May 2024, an ICSID tribunal dismissed all claims brought by US-based Silver Bull Resources against Mexico in an investment arbitration relating to a mining project in Sierra Mojada, Coahuila. Silver Bull had sought over $315 million, alleging unfair blockade of its mining concessions. The tribunal ruled unanimously against Silver Bull, found it lacked jurisdiction, and ordered the company to reimburse Mexico's arbitration costs.
What Happened
Silver Bull Resources, a US mining firm, initiated arbitration in 2023 under the NAFTA framework, seeking more than $315 million from Mexico for alleged wrongdoing concerning mining concessions in Sierra Mojada, Coahuila.
The company alleged that local cooperatives, with the support of local authorities, blocked development of its mining project from 2019 onward.
Mexico countered that local authorities acted reasonably in response to social conflict and argued the claims were time-barred or beyond NAFTA's scope, and that Silver Bull lacked technical and financial capacity for the project.
The ICSID tribunal unanimously found it lacked jurisdiction to hear Silver Bull's claims and dismissed them entirely. Silver Bull was also ordered to cover Mexico's legal costs tied to the arbitration.
Context
The dispute related to historical mining concessions acquired between 1996 and 2002 by Silver Bull in Sierra Mojada. The conflict with local mining cooperatives emerged in 2019, allegedly impeding project progress.
Silver Bull's claim was filed under NAFTA rules at ICSID, the World Bank's investment dispute forum. The tribunal concluded the facts cited by the company fell outside the period subject to treaty jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
- The ruling confirms the limits on investment treaty protection under NAFTA's successor agreements and signals the challenge claimants may face in cases involving disputed time frames and local conflicts.
- Mexico recovers legal costs and avoids a significant financial liability, reinforcing treaty-based standards for arbitration admissibility.