[New blog post] More than a verdict: Local perspectives on the Pakistan Reko Diq dispute
Published 15 May 2025
Photo by IslandHopper X
In a new blog post on the Business and Human Rights Journal blog, authors Asif Khan, Dmytro Cherneha and Stephanie Triefus argue that the arbitration case between the Australian copper company Tethyan v. Pakistan has largely overlooked local perspectives, prioritising resource development over the well-being of affected communities.
The long-running legal dispute involved the Reko Diq mine in Pakistan, one of the world's largest undeveloped copper-gold deposits. The conflict began in 2011, when the government of Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest province, rejected the mining license application of the Australian copper company Tethyan. In response, the company filed claims with both the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
In the Tethyan case, Pakistan was found liable for breaching investment treaty provisions concerning fair and equitable treatment, minimum standard of treatment, and indirect expropriation. It resulted in the announcement of a nearly $6 billion arbitration award, equivalent to the state’s 2019 IMF loan for the mining project, which never advanced beyond the planning stage.
Accruing interest
The financial burden, coupled with accruing interest, would have severely strained Pakistan’s economy, jeopardising essential services for its most vulnerable populations. Consequently, these circumstances left Pakistan no alternative but to negotiate the resumption of mining operations. In 2022, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan restructured an agreement with Barrick Gold, permitting the extraction of gold and copper in Reko Diq.
In their blog post, entitled‘More Than a Verdict: Local Perspectives on the Pakistan Reko Diq Dispute’ authors Khan, Cherneha and Triefus focus on a perspective that is often overlooked in many academic and blog discussions: that of local communities and the potential risks and harms that they may face.
According to the authors, the Reko Diq project, with its longstanding legal and environmental issues, has primarily prioritised the development of resources rather than the well-being of the people. It showcases the inconsistency between the investment regimes and the United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs), which, under Pillar II, Principle 18, establish that to address human rights risks, companies should engage in meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups.
The authors underscore that such processes should include a genuine dialogue with stakeholders, particularly those who have raised, or are likely to raise, concerns, as this engagement is essential to understanding the potential risks and harms that local communities may face.
According to the authors, the Pakistan v Reko Diq case illustrates that local perspectives on mining activities were disregarded throughout the eight year arbitration process, showing persistent tensions between transnational corporations and developing nations. The ICSID procedure failed to adequately incorporate local perspectives in its decision-making, in direct contradiction to the UNGPs’ expectations regarding meaningful stakeholder engagement.
About the authors
Dr Asif Khan is a visiting research fellow at the Centre for Human Rights Erlangen Nuremberg (CHREN). He serves as an Associate Professor at the NUST Law School in Islamabad, Pakistan. His main research interests revolve around business and human rights, investment and arbitration law, and international humanitarian law.
Dmytro Cherneha is a research intern at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut. He obtained an L.L.M in Public International Law from Utrecht University. His main research interests revolve around business and human rights, investment and arbitration law, and human rights law.
Dr Stephanie Triefus is a researcher at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Academic Coordinator of the Netherlands Network for Human Rights Research. Her research interests include business and human rights, climate change and international economic law.
