Investor-state arbitration has long been the forum for disputes arising from state measures against foreign investors. Yet in today’s geopolitical landscape, disputes over natural resources are no longer confined to tribunals in Paris, London, Washington, or The Hague. They unfold simultaneously in the public sphere: in media narratives, political discourse, and capital markets.
Nowhere is this currently clearer than in Niger, where French nuclear energy group Orano faces the nationalisation of SOMAIR, a uranium mine it has operated for decades. The legal issues are familiar: questions of unlawful expropriation, breaches of bilateral investment treaties, and compensation attached to upholding the international Rule of Law. But the reputational and geopolitical dynamics are equally important. For Orano, as for many investors in politically sensitive jurisdictions, the outcome will be determined by more than the arbitral award. It will also be determined by how effectively it communicates its position to multiple audiences.
The Orano–Niger Dispute
In June 2025, Niger’s military government announced it would nationalise SOMAIR, one of the country’s most important uranium mines and a cornerstone of Orano’s global supply chain. The decision came less than two years after Niger’s July 2023 coup, which toppled a pro-Western government and aligned the country more closely with Russia and other non-Western partners.
Orano’s response was swift. The company characterised the move as unlawful and in breach of established agreements. It framed the dispute as a test of the international Rule of Law and the sanctity of investment protections – significantly more than a corporate grievance. With France still deriving around 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, and Niger historically a key supplier, the stakes actually extend beyond corporate profit to questions of European energy security.
Orano must therefore mobilise political and institutional support in a context of increased tensions with Niger. The arbitration procedure is not limited to a legal dispute: it is part of a broader debate on French energy sovereignty and France’s place in Africa.
The case has already attracted significant media attention. Coverage has of course examined the legalities but has also set the dispute against a wider narrative of African sovereignty, resource nationalism, and geopolitical realignment. For Orano, controlling the narrative – presenting itself as a reliable partner unfairly targeted, rather than as a relic of colonial exploitation – is as critical as its legal filings.
The company must anticipate the reactions of elected officials, particularly those involved in issues of decolonisation or energy transition, who may criticise its handling of the crisis. Finally, in a sector as strategic as nuclear power, Orano cannot afford to lose the trust of regulators or industrial partners (such as EDF), who depend on its uranium supply.
A Broader Trend of Resource Nationalisation
While Niger’s case is headline-grabbing, it is far from isolated. A broader trend of resource nationalism has been reshaping the investment landscape for years:
- Venezuela (2000s–2010s): Dozens of oil companies faced expropriation under Hugo Chávez’s government. While many secured arbitral awards, enforcement has been slow and politically fraught. Some companies, such as ConocoPhillips, have spent years chasing compensation through enforcement actions in third countries. Reputationally, companies were often cast in hostile domestic narratives as exploitative outsiders.
- Tanzania (2017 onwards): The government imposed sweeping new laws increasing royalties and giving it the power to renegotiate existing contracts. Acacia Mining, a subsidiary of Barrick Gold, faced an export ban and tax claims running into the billions. The company’s reputation was battered locally, accused of tax evasion and environmental harm, before eventually reaching a settlement that included a large payout and ceding a stake to the state.
- Zambia (2019–2021): The government placed Konkola Copper Mines, owned by Vedanta Resources, into provisional liquidation, citing environmental and operational concerns. The dispute quickly escalated into arbitration. Meanwhile, public messaging from the Zambian government portrayed Vedanta as failing to deliver benefits to Zambians, fuelling a reputational crisis that ultimately shaped negotiations.
- Kazakhstan (2009 onwards): Disputes over oil projects such as Kashagan saw the government leverage environmental fines and contractual claims to extract concessions. Western oil majors found themselves needing to manage both the tribunal process and their reputation as investors in the country.
In each case, legal filings were only part of the battle. Media coverage and political alliances that influenced public sentiment shaped outcomes long before arbitral awards were delivered.
Legal vs Reputational Stakes
From a strictly legal perspective, arbitration provides answers to narrow questions: Was there unlawful expropriation? Was fair and equitable treatment breached? Is compensation owed, and how much?
But from a practical perspective, these awards often arrive years later and may face enforcement challenges. In the meantime, reputational and political outcomes harden. Investors may withdraw. Financial markets may downgrade sovereign credit ratings. Policymakers in Washington, Brussels, or Beijing may re-evaluate their engagement with a jurisdiction.
For Orano, by way of example, this means the dispute is about more than whether an arbitral tribunal in a few years’ time finds that Niger acted unlawfully. It is about whether, during those years, Orano can maintain investor confidence, preserve political support in Europe, and resist being cast as an emblem of exploitative foreign influence.
Why Communications Strategy Is Critical
Narrative Control
Governments have a structural advantage: they can present their actions as exercises of sovereignty, or national development and subsequent justice. Companies must proactively counter this by framing disputes as breaches of legal commitments that undermine predictability and fairness in parallel advocacy, reinforcing the legal case in the court of public opinion.
Stakeholder Reassurance
Investors, employees, and partners need to hear that the company has a plan. Transparent, disciplined messaging provides reassurance and avoids speculation that can drive financial or operational instability.
Geopolitical Alignment
Legal arguments about expropriation or treaty breaches do not easily translate into political talking points. Communications advisers help render them in terms that resonate with policymakers: contractual stability, fairness, energy security, or climate transition. For Orano, the link to Europe’s decarbonisation agenda could be particularly important.
Countering Misinformation
Disputes in fragile states often attract disinformation campaigns. In Niger, narratives painting Orano as a neocolonial exploiter are already circulating. Anticipating and rebutting these narratives with factual, accessible communications in in the markers that matter to their business continuity is critical.
Local Sensitivities
Global consistency must be balanced with local nuance. Messaging that plays well in Paris or Brussels may come across as paternalistic or inflammatory in Niamey. Tailoring communications to local audiences – while maintaining the core narrative – is essential. That is where it is critical to have a centrally coordinated “global” strategy with both, critically, language and cultural nuance at its core.
Practical Advice for Legal Teams
For lawyers advising clients in resource nationalisation disputes, several lessons emerge. The first is the importance of integrating communications from the outset. Too often, communications are treated as an afterthought, bolted on once proceedings are already underway. In reality, stakeholder perceptions begin forming the moment an issue arises or the dispute becomes public, and if left unaddressed they can harden into damaging narratives long before the first procedural hearing.
Equally vital is audience mapping. Disputes of this type span multiple jurisdictions and constituencies: what is said in Paris, Brussels or Washington will land differently from how it is received in Niamey, Lusaka or Caracas. Each requires a tailored strategy, but coherence of message across these audiences is essential to preserve credibility.
Litigation milestones provide another anchor for communications. The filing of claims, jurisdictional challenges, interim orders and hearings all create moments of heightened interest. If handled carefully, these procedural steps can be used to reinforce a company’s narrative externally and demonstrate that it is both confident in its legal position and sensitive to the broader political context.
Alongside this, it is important to work with communications advisors who are fully aware of the legal sensitivities of publicity around proceedings, including privilege. External messaging must always be aligned with legal strategy to ensure that communications do not inadvertently prejudice the case or waive confidentiality. A disciplined process for coordinating between lawyers and communications advisers is critical.
Finally, lawyers must encourage clients to think long-term. Arbitrations take years, sometimes decades, to reach final resolution. Communications strategies must therefore be sustainable and adaptable to shifting geopolitical dynamics.
Beyond the Courtroom
The tribunal will eventually decide Orano’s claims. But reputational outcomes will be shaped much earlier, largely by media narratives that will influence investor perceptions, and diplomatic positioning.
A legal victory years from now could prove Pyrrhic if reputational damage has already undermined the company’s position.
This is the broader lesson of Venezuela, Tanzania, Zambia, and now Niger: litigation without communications is a half-built strategy.
Conclusion
Resource nationalisation disputes are at the frontier of international arbitration. They are also at the frontier of reputational risk. For companies like Orano, legal strategy and communications strategy must be integrated from the outset. For lawyers advising in this space, recognising that advocacy extends beyond the tribunal is essential.
As governments continue to test the limits of sovereignty over natural resources, those who can combine legal rigour with strategic communications will be best placed to prevail both in law and in preserving reputation, investor confidence, and long-term viability.
By Dina Hudson, Lead Consultant, Byfield Consultancy
