May 27, 2025 - One of the defining features of arbitration conducted under the auspices of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is the binding and final nature of the arbitration awards rendered under the ICSID Convention. This principle is embodied in Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention, which provides that "Contracting States" must recognize ICSID awards "as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State." Like all arbitration awards, however, ICSID awards must be confirmed and recognized by the courts in the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought. As a result, domestic courts adjudicating ICSID enforcement actions must apply whatever statute of limitations or repose is prescribed by that jurisdiction.
In the U.S., the law implementing the ICSID Convention is silent on the limitations period for bringing actions to enforce ICSID arbitral awards. See 22 U.S.C. ' 1650a. In contrast, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which implements the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, provides for a three-year statute of limitations for bringing actions to enforce arbitral awards. See 9 U.S.C. ' 207.
So, what statute of limitations applies in ICSID enforcement actions in the U.S.? That is the question the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia faced in two recent actions seeking enforcement of ICSID awards against the Argentine Republic: Titan Consortium 1, LLC v. Argentine Republic, No. 21-cv-2250 (JMC), 2024 WL 3858821 (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2014); and Webuild S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, 757 F. Supp. 3d 65 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2024).
I. What statute of limitations applies to the enforcement of ICSID awards in Washington?
Ordinarily, when applicable federal law lacks a statute of limitations, the U.S. Supreme Court instructs federal courts to "'borrow' the most suitable statute or other rule of timeliness from some other source." DelCostello v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 158 (1983). In typical cases, this "most suitable statute" will be "the most closely analogous statute of limitations under state law." Id. If, however, there is a "closer analogy" in federal law that provides "a significantly more appropriate vehicle for interstitial lawmaking" given the circumstances of the case, then the court borrows the statute of limitations from that federal law. Id. at 172.
This choice-of-law question took center stage in the two actions seeking to enforce ICSID awards rendered against Argentina. Those actions were brought approximately four years (Titan) and 10 years (Webuild) after the...
