Commercial Dispute, Not Border Politics
Russia also contended that the arbitration awards were geopolitical in nature, arguing they centered on a border dispute rather than commercial conduct and therefore fell outside the New York Convention’s enforcement framework.
The panel rejected that argument, concluding that the dispute concerned commercial assets — including an electricity grid serving more than 780,000 customers — not sovereignty determinations.
“The dispute arises from investments planted squarely in commerce,” Judge Childs wrote, quoting prior D.C. Circuit precedent.
The arbitral tribunals, the court noted, deliberately avoided deciding whether Crimea legally belongs to Russia or Ukraine. Instead, they focused on Russia’s de facto control of the territory and its impact on commercial investments.
“They applied the Investment Treaty to commercial conduct occurring in territory under Russia’s de facto control,” the opinion states. “Nothing more — and nothing less.”
Enforcement Fight Moves Forward
Friday’s ruling does not itself confirm the awards, but it clears a major procedural hurdle and allows the enforcement battle to proceed before U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols.
The decision marks another legal flashpoint tied to the 2014 annexation of Crimea — a geopolitical conflict now spilling into U.S. courts through high-value commercial arbitration claims.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
