## Facts

- Investor claimants (BSG Resources Limited and later its Guinean affiliates) pursued ICSID arbitration against the Republic of Guinea concerning iron ore mining rights in the Simandou and Zogota areas.
- Guinea had revoked the relevant mining titles in April 2014 after a governmental review concluded the rights were obtained through corrupt practices; the claimants denied corruption and alleged unlawful state conduct affecting their investment.
- The arbitration was initiated by a request filed in September 2014; in 2015 the proceeding focused on interim procedural management rather than jurisdiction or merits.
- In April–June 2015, Guinea sought relief under ICSID Arbitration Rules 28(1) and 39(1), including provisional measures and controls related to evidence and confidentiality; the claimants opposed the breadth and necessity of the requested measures.
- In September 2015, the tribunal adopted a transparency regime for the case through Procedural Order No. 2, applying the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency on a modified basis.
- In October 2015, BSG’s Guinean affiliates filed a second request for arbitration that was later consolidated with the first proceeding.
- In November 2015, the tribunal issued Procedural Orders Nos. 3 and 4, addressing Guinea’s provisional-measures request and additional procedural organization.
- In December 2015, Guinea submitted a further application under Arbitration Rule 39(1).

## Issues

1. What provisional measures, if any, were necessary and urgent under ICSID Arbitration Rule 39(1) to preserve the parties’ rights pending determination of the dispute.
2. What safeguards were appropriate for handling evidence and protecting confidentiality while preserving each party’s ability to present its case.
3. Whether, and on what terms, the proceedings should be conducted with enhanced transparency and public access to filings and decisions.
4. How to coordinate multiple related claimant proceedings to ensure procedural economy and due process.

## Decision

- The tribunal issued procedural orders in 2015 but did not decide jurisdiction, liability, expropriation, or corruption.
- Procedural Order No. 2 established an enhanced transparency framework, applying UNCITRAL transparency norms to the proceeding with confidentiality protections.
- Procedural Order No. 3 ruled on Guinea’s request for provisional measures, providing interim directions tailored to the parties’ competing concerns.
- Procedural Order No. 4 resolved additional procedural matters, including organization of pleadings and case management steps for subsequent phases.

## Legal Principles

- Provisional measures in ICSID arbitration may be ordered to preserve the respective rights of the parties and are evaluated by reference to necessity, urgency, and proportionality to the rights asserted.
- Procedural safeguards for evidence and confidentiality must be balanced against equality of arms and each party’s right to present its case.
- Transparency measures in investor–state arbitration may be expanded where the dispute concerns public resources and serious allegations, subject to protection of confidential information and procedural fairness.
- Tribunals may manage related claims through consolidation or coordinated procedures to reduce duplication while protecting due process.

## Conclusion

In 2015, the tribunal’s actions were primarily case-management decisions: it set foundational procedures, addressed Guinea’s applications for interim protection and evidentiary safeguards, adopted an enhanced transparency regime, and structured the proceeding to accommodate multiple related claimants, leaving jurisdiction and merits for later phases.


BSG Res. Ltd. v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/22 (2015)