At a recent press conference, Nikol Pashinyan dismissed concerns over the growing number of international arbitration claims against Armenia, brushing off a journalist’s question about whether the country could withstand yet another potentially costly lawsuit — this time from the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA).
“You’re putting the Republic of Armenia on trial as if it’s already guilty,” Pashinyan said. “You’re already splitting the money as if we’ve lost. Who said Armenia is going to lose?” He pointed to recent legal victories and accused the media of fueling panic. “So what if there’s arbitration? Everyone is panicking again. This stampede mentality is nonsense.”
In response to mounting public concern, ArmLur submitted a formal inquiry to the government. The official reply confirmed the scope of the issue: Armenia is currently facing \$1.5 billion in active arbitration claims.
Despite the prime minister’s confident tone, Armenia has only won two arbitration cases to date:
1. Edmond Khudyan & Arin Capital Investments v. Republic of Armenia
Armenia prevailed. The claimants were ordered to pay \$337,466.34 in ICSID arbitration advances and \$400,000 in legal fees.
2. J. Borkovski and Rasia FZE v. Republic of Armenia
All claims were rejected. Armenia was awarded \$2,783,250.09, which was paid after a failed annulment attempt.
Several high-stakes cases remain ongoing, posing significant legal and financial risks:
Walnort Finance Limited v. Armenia
Filed with ICSID in June 2024, this case stems from a shareholder dispute related to the Zangezur Copper-Molybdenum Combine (ZCMC). Walnort, a Cyprus-based investor, alleges its rights were violated during state-linked restructuring of the mine. While the damages sought remain confidential, they are reportedly substantial.
Amulsar Investor Ventures LLC v. Armenia
This case, brought under UNCITRAL rules and administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, involves alleged government interference in the Amulsar gold mine project. The claimant, a successor to Lydian International, argues that Armenia failed to ensure continuous access to the site, resulting in major financial losses. Hearings on jurisdiction took place in January 2025.
Sanitek S.a.r.l., Sari Haddad & Elias Doumet v. Armenia
This ICSID case, initiated in 2021, involves the defunct Lebanese waste management firm Sanitek. The claimants accuse the Armenian government of breaching contracts, engaging in political interference, and using hostile public rhetoric that undermined their operations in Yerevan. Two rounds of hearings have been completed, with a decision expected in late 2025.
Air Arabia v. Armenia (pre-filing)
Although not yet officially filed, Air Arabia has announced its intention to seek arbitration following the collapse of Fly Arna, its joint venture with Armenia’s National Interests Fund (ANIF). The airline, which shut down in 2024, claims Armenia failed to meet its financial and operational obligations. Preparations to file with ICSID are reportedly underway.
Collectively, these unresolved cases represent a mounting external legal burden for Armenia — compounding the country’s growing national debt. Potential damages, legal fees, and reputational harm are all pressing concerns for the state’s already-stretched budget.
For Pashinyan, however, these legal battles appear to take a back seat to political messaging and the projection of strength. But behind the government’s defiance, it is Armenian taxpayers who bear the ultimate cost — whether through legal expenses, arbitration awards, or long and costly court proceedings.
