What methods have ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil used to try to enforce ICSID awards against Venezuela since 2019?
Executive summary
Since the 2019 ICSID award to ConocoPhillips and earlier awards to ExxonMobil, both oil majors have pursued a multi‑jurisdictional enforcement strategy that mixes recognition and registration of ICSID and ICC awards in foreign courts, attachment and alter‑ego theories to reach state‑owned oil assets, and appointment of receivers or inclusion of awards in asset auctions such as those surrounding CITGO; Venezuela has repeatedly fought back through annulment applications, sovereign‑immunity defenses and public claims of illegitimacy [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. ConocoPhillips’ playbook: register awards, seek attachments, and press upside‑down into host and third‑party jurisdictions
ConocoPhillips began by securing an ICSID award in March 2019 for roughly USD 8.5–8.7 billion for the expropriation of Orinoco Belt projects and then moved to register and enforce that award in multiple national courts, including registering the award in Delaware and in Trinidad and Tobago [1] [6] [7]. The company has sought writs of attachment targeting U.S.‑based shares owned by Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA and has relied on U.S. courts to recognize and enforce ICSID judgments, a strategy approved on appeal in the U.S. Third Circuit [2] [8]. ConocoPhillips has also persuaded a Trinidad and Tobago court to appoint a receiver over payments owed to PDVSA as part of recovery efforts tied to a separate ICC award, and successfully registered the ICSID award there despite Venezuela’s arguments about withdrawal from ICSID and assertions of sovereign immunity [3] [7].
2. ExxonMobil’s enforcement steps: ICSID award, U.S. court enforcement and partial recoveries
ExxonMobil’s ICSID victory dates earlier, with a roughly USD 1.6 billion award for seized assets, and the company has likewise turned to U.S. courts to press for enforcement against Venezuelan state interests and subsidiaries [9] [10]. Reporting indicates that ExxonMobil pursued recognition in U.S. courts, obtained at least partial payment (an initial USD 255 million cited in later reporting), and used resubmission proceedings that yielded additional smaller awards in 2023, with U.S. courts rejecting some Venezuelan appeals as part of enforcement [10]. Public summaries note ExxonMobil continues to press outstanding claims while Venezuela contests liabilities [9] [10].
3. Jurisdictional and doctrinal tools: BITs, “alter‑ego” theories, receiverships and auction tagging
Both companies have relied on bilateral investment treaties (notably the Venezuela–Netherlands BIT for Netherlands‑incorporated subsidiaries) and the ICSID Convention as the legal foundation for awards and recognition in domestic courts [11] [6]. Enforcement tactics extended beyond straightforward recognition: ConocoPhillips successfully argued—subject to litigation—that PDVSA or its U.S. subsidiaries could be treated as alter egos to reach assets, tagged arbitration awards onto court‑ordered sales or auctions of assets such as CITGO, and used third‑country courts’ recognition rules (Trinidad, Delaware, Curaçao) to widen the net of collectible assets [4] [7] [3] [8].
4. Venezuela’s counters: annulments, sovereign‑immunity defenses and political framing
Venezuela has contested awards through annulment proceedings before ICSID, which in several instances were dismissed, and through domestic law defenses including sovereign immunity claims in U.S. courts and procedural objections to service in foreign courts [5] [4] [2] [7]. The state also points to its 2012 withdrawal from ICSID, frames nationalization as a sovereign prerogative, and accuses tribunals of bias—arguments reflected in public statements and legal filings even when courts have rejected them [4] [5]. These defenses have had mixed success: some annulment requests were rejected while sovereign‑immunity and jurisdictional fights continue to shape incremental outcomes [5] [2].
5. Stakes, constraints and short‑term outlook
The enforcement campaign has converted arbitration awards into a global litigation mobilization: registration orders in several jurisdictions, appellate wins in the U.S., receiverships and efforts to reach PDVSA or CITGO‑linked revenues show tactical breadth, but actual recovery depends on locating attachable commercial assets and defeating sovereign‑immunity shields and domestic legal hurdles [7] [8] [2]. Alternative viewpoints stress that Venezuela’s fiscal crisis and political disputes over recognition of state authorities complicate collection and that courts must balance treaty enforcement against doctrines protecting sovereign functions—an ongoing tension visible in the mixed results documented in U.S., Caribbean and ICSID proceedings [3] [4] [5].