A/70/301 available to investors, including the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the International Chamber of Commerce. 16. Investors have direct access to such mechanisms with regard to any dispute that may arise within the context of international investment agreements, and, under provisions in international investment agreements, are not obligated to exhaust domestic remedies beforehand, thereby eliminating any form of judicial review. The non-judicial tribunals can award compensation to investors if the State is judged to have violated clauses in the investment treaty. There are no limitations on the financial awards that can be made. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) reported that in 2014 a State was compelled to pay $50 billion to a corporation relating to three closely linked cases. 3 Such decisions cannot be appealed and are strictly binding upon States parties. Retroactive compound interest can be charged to States, at commercial rates, from the date of the measure that is being challenged within an investor -State dispute settlement case. It is reported that in one instance, a State party was instructed to pay $589 million in interest as part of a billion dollar award to a corpor ation. 6 17. The majority of investor-State dispute settlement proceedings are bought against developing countries. Some 78 per cent of the known 608 investor -State dispute settlement claims bought against 101 countries have been against less developed countries. However, recent trends have shown that a growing proportion of investor-State dispute settlement cases are being brought against developed countries. In 2014, 40 per cent of new cases were against such States. 3 Cases against developed countries are predominantly brought by investors in other economically advanced countries, such as those in North America and the European Union. 7 As at the end of 2014, the most common States to be challenged in investor -State dispute settlement cases were Argentina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Canada, Mexico, Ecuador, India, Ukraine, Poland and the United States. While there is a mixture of developed and developing countries in that list, tribunal proceedings do not affect them equally. For example, the United States has used its legal and financial resources to fight investor -State dispute settlement cases, and it has never lost and been required to award compensation to an investor. 8 18. Investors who brought investor-State dispute settlement cases in 2014 were predominantly from developed countries. The most common home States were the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Germany, France, Canada, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Turke y, Belgium and Austria. That follows long-term trends that show 80 per cent of claims are brought by investors from highly developed countries within North America and the European Union. 3 19. The majority of recent investor-State dispute settlement proceedings have been brought under bilateral investment treaties; 30 of the known 42 cases in 2014 were __________________ 6 7 8 8/24 Public Citizen, “Memorandum”. Available from citizen.org/documents/oxy -v-ecuador-memo.pdf. UNCTAD, “IIA issues note: investor-State dispute settlement: an information note on the United States and the European Union”, IIA issues notes, No. 2 (June 2014). Available from http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2014d4_en.pdf. Congressional Research Service, “International investment agreements (IIAs): frequently asked questions”, 15 May 2015. Available from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44015.pdf. 15-12526