Foreign investors who win an arbitration case against a government understand well that winning the award does not settle the matter. Rather, it may merely be the beginning of a new and unpredictable phase of the dispute. Governments are increasingly refusing to honour compensation awards that international tribunals have made in favour of foreign investors. Topping that list, perhaps surprisingly, is an EU Member State. Spain now has more unpaid awards than any other country in the world. For the investors holding these awards, getting paid has become a long, arduous campaign, fought in courtrooms and the press, and aimed at the finance ministries that ultimately decide whether to pay. How they communicate can decide whether, and when, the awards are paid.
A recent example was seen in September, when a federal judge in Washington DC confirmed four Energy Charter Treaty awards against Spain, worth nearly €196 million, rejecting Spain’s argument that EU law forbids payment. Months earlier, the US Supreme Court declined to hear Spain’s appeal in three earlier enforcement cases.
The rulings come as the 2026 Report on Compliance with Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards, published by Prof. Nikos Lavranos and the International Law Compliance Institute (ILCI), ranks Spain as the worst global offender for non-compliance. It has 25 unpaid awards and owes at least $2 billion. Venezuela comes second, with 24 unpaid awards worth $19.3 billion. Russia is third, with 13 unpaid awards worth $61.8 billion.
Enforcement can become a campaign lasting years and spanning continents. Each milestone, from a court filing to a ruling or an attempt to seize assets, gives the State an opportunity to tell its story in public, and it usually grasps it. An investor without a communications strategy is not staying neutral; it is conceding the narrative to the other side and gravely underestimating the cost of silence. Ultimately, the absence of communications shapes how the various stakeholders involved – media, public, political actors, funders – perceive the dispute.
Building a strategic enforcement campaign – The key steps
Develop a narrative early.
Similar to all disputes, stakeholders (legal counsel, board, funder) must establish a single, consistent narrative. The plaintiffs are often long-term investors who have been impacted by changes in legislation; the perception that they are litigants chasing a windfall must be countered early in the dispute. Spokespeople must be identified and conditions for engagement with external stakeholders agreed upon. A thorough audit should be done to understand what factual or reputational weaknesses may impact the claimant’s narrative; the reality is that anything that undercuts its account will likely be found and used.
Inciting action from the State.
Public campaigns aimed at a State’s own voters tend to harden its position; research shows that domestic coverage of investment claims lowers public support for the system. Pressure from lenders, markets and investors will be most effective in influencing reluctant states. This includes finance ministries and debt management offices as well as rating agencies and bond investors who read non-payment as a credit signal. The investment-promotion agency in each state is also a stakeholder to consider, given that their mandates may be negatively impacted by unpaid-award headlines.
A prime example is Argentina: after years of refusing, it settled five outstanding awards in 2013; taking the step to be compliant was widely linked to unlocking IMF and World Bank funding and regaining access to credit.
Establish a strategic timetable.
Every enforcement filing, whether in Washington, London or Hong Kong, is a news event and should be planned as one. Communications materials should ideally be ready before the filing is made, and local counsel and local communications advisers need to work using the same core narrative in each forum.
Typically, the most newsworthy developments are asset tracing, the search for State-owned property that can be seized, and attachments, the court orders that freeze or seize that property to satisfy the award. These activities require a communications plan prepared in advance to run in parallel. Journalists, investors and the State’s own voters will ask why those assets were targeted and what prompted the move; the claimant’s position must be established and consistently communicated with all stakeholder groups.
Preparing for the State’s response.
The State is likely to deploy now familiar arguments: its right to sovereignty, the burden on taxpayers, depicting the claimant as a vulture investor and, inside the EU, the argument that paying would amount to unlawful state aid. In anticipation, scenario plans should be created to move with agility and precision depending on what tactics emerge.
The claimant’s own credibility will be a key factor; it is important to audit and identify factual and reputational weaknesses which could be used in a counter campaign. States now routinely raise questions regarding the legitimacy of third-party funding and the sale of awards to specialist buyers to damage the credibility of the claim; the investor should disclose such factors, allowing them to present their own rationale and framing.
The fact will remain that the State signed the treaty and it is arguable that in the long run non-payment costs its investment climate more than the award itself.
The rule of law as final leverage
The strongest argument available to an award holder is also the most basic: a State that signs a treaty is bound by it. The EU and its Member States present themselves as champions of a rules-based international order, yet Spain has spent a decade arguing that EU law releases it from awards made under the Energy Charter Treaty. Courts outside the EU have consistently disagreed. “EU law does not trump international law outside the EU, nor does it negate existing international legal obligations,” says Lavranos, and each enforcement ruling in the US, the UK, Singapore and Australia adds weight to that position.
This should help frame the communications strategy. Payment need not look like a defeat for the State; it can be presented as consistency with the values the State itself professes. Non-payment, by contrast, places an EU Member State alongside Venezuela and Russia and, in Lavranos’s words, “sets a bad precedent for other potentially non-compliant States”. A long list of States honour their awards, with Peru settling several adverse awards in the past year. Investors who view enforcement as both a legal and communications challenge are improving the odds that the award will be honoured and hastening the point at which their dispute reaches its actual resolution.
The full 2026 Compliance Report is available from the International Law Compliance Institute.