STATE-TO-STATE DISPUTES

• Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar). We represent the Republic of The Gambia in a lawsuit under the Genocide Convention seeking to hold Myanmar accountable under international law for genocide against the Rohingya. We secured a unanimous provisional measures order against Myanmar.
• Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Azerbaijan v. Armenia and Armenia v. Azerbaijan). We represent Armenia in proceedings arising from allegations of breach of the CERD. We secured critical victories for Armenia on the Parties’ requests for provisional measures.
• The State of Qatar and the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (2017) – Application (A); and, the State of Qatar and the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (2017) – Application (B). We successfully represented the State of Qatar in proceedings before the ICJ brought by Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE against decisions on the jurisdiction of the ICAO Council to hear a complaint by Qatar arising under the Convention on International Civil Aviation and the International Air Services Transit Agreement. 
• Land and Maritime Delimitation and Sovereignty over Islands (Gabon/Equatorial Guinea). We represent the Republic of Equatorial Guinea in a dispute with Gabon regarding the maritime boundary, the land boundary and sovereignty over islands. 
• Guyana v. Venezuela (Case Concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899). We represent Guyana in a case brought to confirm the international boundary between the two States as determined by an arbitral award whose validity Venezuela has challenged.
• Nicaragua v. Colombia (Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute). We successfully represented Nicaragua in this case to delimit maritime boundaries in the western Caribbean Sea. Nicaragua achieved a major victory over Colombia, obtaining access to the full extent of its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, which Colombia sought to cut off at 70 nautical miles, and more than 75% of the waters claimed by both States in the Caribbean Sea.
• Argentina v. Uruguay (Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the Uruguay River). We successfully represented Uruguay in this proceeding, defending its right to sustainable development through the construction of a paper pulp mill by showing that the mill satisfied the highest environmental standards. The Court rejected Argentina’s request to shut down the plant based on unproven allegations of harm to the river shared by the two States.
• Philippines v. China. We successfully represented the Philippines in an arbitration pursuant to Annex VII of the United Nations Convention Law of the Sea regarding maritime jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected China’s claim to “historic rights” in the maritime areas encompassed by its so-called “nine-dashed line” as inconsistent with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, and found that China violated the Philippines' sovereign rights under the Convention.
• Bangladesh v. Myanmar. We successfully represented Bangladesh in this case before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea to delimit the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal. The Judgment, issued on 14 March 2012, gave Bangladesh the vast majority of the disputed maritime area, as well as an extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.

INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTES

• Raiffeisen Bank International AG and Raiffeisen Bank Austria d.d. v. Republic of Croatia. We successfully represented Croatia in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Croatia-Austria BIT, as well as in parallel proceedings before German courts. We secured a historical decision of the Oberlandesgericht accepting our request that the Claimants’ request for arbitration be inadmissible under EU law in accordance with the European Court of Justice’s Judgment in Achmea that the arbitration provisions in intra-EU investment treaties are void. This was the first time a court in the European Union concluded that the principles of EU law enunciated by the CJEU in Achmea apply beyond the Achmea litigation.
• Ritika Mehta, Vinita Agarwal, and Prenay Agarwal v. the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. We successfully represented Uruguay in an UNCITRAL arbitration before the PCA under the Uruguay-UK BIT, involving a large-scale iron ore mining project, which Claimants alleged to be worth $3.47 billion. The tribunal unanimously denied jurisdiction and ordered Claimants to pay Uruguay’s legal fees
• Thomas Gosling and others v. Republic of Mauritius. We successfully helped Mauritius defeat a challenge to its protection of the first UNESCO World heritage site commemorating resistance against slavery. The claim brought by UK investors who sought to turn it into a luxury resort complex was fully dismissed by an ICSID tribunal.
• Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay. We successfully represented Uruguay in a case involving claims of breaches to fair and equitable treatment, alleged indirect expropriation and denial of justice arising out of the implementation of tobacco regulations.
• Ping An Life Insurance Company of China, Limited and Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Limited v. Kingdom of Belgium. We successfully represented the Kingdom of Belgium in this ICSID arbitration filed by Chinese financial services company Ping An under the Belgium-China BIT. The tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis because the dispute settlement provisions of the new treaty did not cover disputes that arose before its entry into force.

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

• We represent a Latin American State-owned oil company in an ICC arbitration brought against the operator of a petroleum block, and its co-concessionaires and guarantors.
• We represent the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy of a Balkan State in an ICC arbitration concerning the termination of a contract for the construction of a wastewater collection and treatment system.
• We achieved a complete victory on behalf of a South Asian State agency in an ICC arbitration brought by a solar energy over the latter’s breach of a Power Purchase Agreement for the construction and operation of a solar power plant.