Resource Disputes Hit 10-Year High: Critical Minerals and Geopolitical Tensions Drive Investor-State Conflicts

This analysis is based on the Reuters report [1] published on November 3, 2025, which revealed that resource disputes between governments and investors have reached a 10-year high in 2025.

The surge in investor-state disputes reflects a fundamental shift in global resource governance, with 32 cases already filed with the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in 2025, exceeding the total for all of 2024 [1]. This escalation is primarily driven by two interconnected factors: rising resource nationalism and intensifying U.S.-China competition for critical minerals essential for strategic technologies [1].

The geographic distribution reveals concentrated risk in resource-rich regions, with Latin America accounting for 11 disputes (led by Colombia with 4 cases) and Africa hosting 10 disputes involving countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, and Tanzania [1]. This concentration creates significant regional risk exposure for companies with operations in these areas.

Current market data shows a complex picture across the resource sector. Energy companies are benefiting from geopolitical tensions (+2.81%), while Basic Materials face regulatory headwinds (-1.30%) [0]. Major diversified miners demonstrate relative resilience:

• Vale (VALE)
  : +1.68% to $12.09, trading near 52-week highs [0]
• BHP Group
  : -0.33% to $57.05, maintaining strong market position [0]
• Rio Tinto
  : -0.64% to $71.74, with robust $116.48B market cap [0]

Specialized critical mineral players show greater volatility, with SQM gaining +1.58% to $48.99 while Lithium Americas declined -2.14% to $5.50 [0], reflecting the uncertain regulatory environment for strategic minerals.

The disputes span 17 cases involving oil and gas, plus numerous cases covering lithium, cobalt, copper, and uranium [1]. These resources are critical for:

• AI and semiconductor manufacturing
• Electric vehicle production
• Renewable energy infrastructure
• National security applications

The strategic nature of these minerals explains the heightened governmental intervention and geopolitical competition, particularly between the U.S. and China [1].

The trend toward resource nationalism represents a structural shift rather than temporary policy fluctuations. Countries like Colombia are implementing comprehensive policy changes, including fracking bans and the creation of natural reserves [1]. This suggests that regulatory uncertainty will persist and potentially intensify, particularly in jurisdictions with significant critical mineral deposits.

The concentration of disputes in specific regions highlights the fragility of global critical mineral supply chains. With 21 of the 32 disputes occurring in Latin America and Africa [1], companies dependent on these regions face significant operational risks. This creates opportunities for geographically diversified miners and those with secure domestic mineral supplies.

The increased use of international arbitration through ICSID [1] indicates that investors are actively seeking legal protection against government actions. However, the growing volume of cases may strain these mechanisms and potentially lead to longer resolution times and increased legal costs for all parties involved.

The analysis reveals several significant risk factors that warrant attention:

1. Regulatory Uncertainty
   : The trend toward resource nationalism suggests increasing government intervention in mining operations [1], potentially affecting project timelines and profitability.

2. Geopolitical Escalation
   : U.S.-China competition over critical minerals may intensify [1], potentially leading to export restrictions, tariffs, or other trade barriers.

3. Operational Disruptions
   : Mining operations in high-dispute regions face potential shutdowns or production restrictions, particularly in Colombia, DRC, Niger, and Tanzania [1].

4. Legal and Compliance Costs
   : Increased arbitration activity raises compliance and legal expenses, potentially impacting company margins.

Despite the risks, several opportunities emerge:

1. Diversified Miners
   : Companies with geographic diversification may benefit from supply constraints affecting less diversified competitors.

2. Strategic Asset Value
   : Companies controlling secure critical mineral supplies may gain premium valuations as supply chain security becomes increasingly valued.

3. Alternative Sources
   : Regions with stable regulatory environments may attract increased investment as companies seek to de-risk their supply chains.

The surge in resource disputes represents a fundamental restructuring of the global mining landscape, with 32 investor-state cases filed in 2025, exceeding the previous year’s total [1]. The disputes are concentrated in Latin America (11 cases) and Africa (10 cases) [1], spanning strategic resources essential for modern technology and national security.

Major diversified miners like Vale, BHP, and Rio Tinto show resilience [0], while specialized critical mineral companies experience greater volatility [0]. The underlying drivers of resource nationalism and U.S.-China competition [1] suggest these trends will persist, creating both significant risks for companies with concentrated geographic exposure and opportunities for well-diversified operators.

Investors should monitor policy developments in high-dispute countries, U.S.-China relations regarding strategic minerals, ICSID rulings, and corporate disclosures of material litigation risks [1]. The stability of global critical mineral supply chains remains a key concern for investment decisions involving mining and resource companies.