Montenegro has entered a growing number of international arbitration disputes in recent years, but there is no coherent or transparent national system tracking these cases, raising concerns about potential hundreds of millions in financial liabilities and the lack of public oversight. Investigations by the Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) show that since around 2020, the state has become party to multiple arbitral proceedings involving foreign investors and multinational firms, yet the public receives only sporadic, minimal information about them. Basic questions such as who is suing the state, on what grounds, before which tribunals, and what the potential financial exposure might beremain largely unanswered.
Montenegro does not have a centralised registry or a dedicated institutional mechanism for managing international arbitration cases. Instead, responsibility is fragmented across various government ministries, each handling disputes tied to different sectors. The government assigns individual ministries to monitor and respond to proceedings without a unified public portal or strategy that would allow citizens, businesses, or policymakers to track the scope and status of ongoing disputes. This fragmentation means that information is scattered across ministries, often marked as confidential, with responses to public inquiries limited to generic statements.
Among the known arbitration cases are high-profile disputes such as the claim brought by investor Adriatic Propertiesover the development and lease arrangement for the luxury hotel site at Sveti Stefan, which was initiated in 2021 before a London arbitration tribunal. Montenegro has also faced claims from a consortium including Northstar and Equest Capital regarding the stalled Montrose tourism project on the Luštica peninsula, as well as a separate claim from Tara Resources AG concerning the termination of a mining concession at the Brskovo brown coal mine near Mojkovac. Another significant matter involves the Chinese contractor China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) over delays on the first segment of the Smokovac–Mateševo highway, with an arbitration agreement concluded in Zurich, although authorities state it has not formally been initiated.
Legal experts specialising in international investment arbitration note that even the basic disclosure of ongoing arbitrations, such as naming the claimant, specifying the legal basis of the claim, and indicating which arbitral forum is hearing the case, would align with standard international practice and would enhance institutional accountability. They also argue that publishing approximate damages sought, especially where sums could affect state finances, along with any costs for external legal counsel and experts, would strengthen public oversight without jeopardising Montenegro’s legal position in the disputes.
Government ministries have responded to inquiries with conflicting jurisdictional statements. The Ministry of Economic Development has said that Montenegro does not have a single central authority overseeing all international arbitrations, and that costs and monitoring records are kept by the individual ministries responsible for each dispute. That ministry has pointed to several completed arbitrations that it says were resolved in favour of Montenegro, avoiding financial loss, and has acknowledged a need for improved prevention mechanisms and early resolution approaches. However, it has also cited confidentiality obligations as a reason for limited disclosure about ongoing proceedings.
The lack of transparency around arbitration disputes has left citizens and observers concerned about Montenegro’s exposure to substantial claims without a clear, publicly accountable structure for managing and reporting on these legal and financial risks. As foreign investment and large infrastructure projects continue to play central roles in the national economy, the disconnect between institutional practice and international expectations highlights pressing questions about governance, legal certainty, and fiscal responsibility in handling cross-border commercial disputes.
