The decision was adopted by the Columbia District Court, which authorized the forced execution of the award issued by CIADI in 2024, after the anticipated resolution of the contract for Chinchero airport.
The case reopens the debate on the consequences of breaking International arbitration decisions: what implications could this situation have for the country, both at the legal level and in terms of its credibility before foreign investors?
Also read: Promigas leads to the Peruvian state before Ciadi: the natural gas rates dispute
The origin of the conflict dates back to 2014, when the Peruvian State awarded Kuntur Wasi the concession to design, finance, build and operate the new Chinchero International Airport in Cusco. The consortium, made up of the Andino Investment Holding and Argentina Peruvian Corporation, would assume the project under a public-private partner associated co-financed.
However, in 2017, the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC) unilaterally resolved the contract claiming reasons of public interest, after questions to a financial adenda and observations of the Comptroller General of the Republic.
In 2018, by not reaching an agreement on the payment of compensation, Kuntur Wasi initiated an international arbitration against CIADI. In its final award, issued in May 2024, the Court concluded that the resolution of the contract was arbitrary and unjustified, violating the investment treaty between Peru and Argentina.
While dismissed the lodge of unemployment, the Court ordered the Peruvian State to pay more than US $ 91 million for the expenses incurred, contractual penalties, taxes and interests.
Also read: Peru again “leads” as the country of the most demanded region against Ciadi
That same year, the consortium requested before the Court of the District of Columbia the recognition and execution of the award. The demand was formally notified to Peru in November 2024.
As no response from the State was submitted within the established period, the US Court declared Peru “in rebellion” on April 8, 2025 and authorized Kuntur Wasi to initiate forced collection by means of statement of state assets that do not enjoy sovereign immunity.
Executive sources pointed to Management that, according to the current regulatory framework, The responsibility for the payment of the arbitral award would fall to the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC)for being the entity with the contract with Kuntur Wasi.
This interpretation is based on numeral 14.3 of article 14 of Law No. 28933, which establishes that payments derived from international arbitral awards must be assumed by the public entity directly involved in the controversy.
To date, the Peruvian government has not issued a public position on its absence in the process or on the steps that will take in front of the sentence. The situation has once again discussed the impact of international arbitration decisions on public management and the responsibility of the State before its contractual commitments.
According to Nicolás Hernández, senior associate of the Rebaza study, Alcázar & de las Casasthe declaration of rebellion is a procedural figure that is activated when a part, in this case the Peruvian State, does not respond to a lawsuit within the legal period despite having been validly notified.
In the procedure initiated by Kuntur Wasi before the Court of the Columbia district, Peru did not present an answer in the established 60 days, which allowed the process to continue without its intervention. This situation leaves the State in helplessness and exposed in the execution procedure.
Manuel Villa-García, partner of the Olaechea studyhe described the omission as An unprecedented fact for Peru in international arbitrations And he pointed out that he transmits an image of institutional disinterest or disorganization.
Also read: Peru beat Minera Cerro Verde in litigation for US $ 909 million against Ciadi
-
The refusal of the Peruvian State to voluntarily fulfill the award allows Kuntur Wasi to initiate forced execution procedures against Peruvian assets abroad, particularly in the United States.
Hernández indicated that, although embargoes have not yet been ordered, the company is already in a position to request measures such as the seizure of commercial assets in American territory.
For its part, Villa-García explained that these processes develop outside the national budget system.
Therefore, the eventual payment would not follow the internal mechanisms for prioritization of public debt, but would be directly completed on the seized assets, which It could affect the country’s reserves or financial instruments for foreign investors.
Also read: Promigas leads to the Peruvian state before Ciadi: the natural gas rates dispute
Both lawyers warn that the implications of the case go beyond the specific process and can compromise the image of Peru before the international community.
Hernández He remarked that the country has historically maintained a line of compliance against CIADI awards, so This case represents a worrying breakdown.
He added that it is possible that the government is evaluating a strategy or negotiation outside the judicial process, although the lack of formal response is, in itself, a negative message.
Villa-Garcíaon the other hand, it was more critical and warned that procedural rebellion sends an institutional informality message. In his opinion, The case can align the country with nations such as Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaraguawhich have been indicated by ignoring arbitral lauds or withdrawing from the Ciadi system.
“We all want to attract investment, but who will come to invest in a country that does not respect the rules that it voluntarily accepts?”, He questioned.
Villa-García recalled that even the government itself has recognized, in official statements, that Failure to comply with awards has been “normalized” at different levels of the state.
He affirmed that this practice erodes the trust of investors and weakens the country’s position in future arbitrations or international indebted processes. “Peru makes Roadshows to attract capital, but if it does not pay when it loses, that effort is neutralized”he pointed out.
Both agree that this situation can have lasting effects on the perception of Legal securityone of the key factors that investors evaluate before committing to long -term projects.
In a context where many public contracts include arbitration clauses precisely to guarantee neutrality in dispute resolution, breach decisions derived from these mechanisms affects institutional credibility and can make access to financing more expensive.
Also read: GSP case: Ciadi is right to Enagás and condemns Peru to pay compensation
