Charles Claypoole

  • Partner
  • 99 Bishopsgate
  • London EC2M 3XF
  • United Kingdom
  • T +44.20.7710.1178


Charles Claypoole, a leading arbitration practitioner, advises governments and investors on public international law, with a particular focus on investment treaty arbitration. A seasoned advocate with an impressive track record, he draws on more than two decades of experience representing clients before a range of international courts and tribunals.

Mr. Claypoole advises clients on a full spectrum of public international law, international trade, and dispute resolution issues. He regularly helps clients navigate disputes related to:

  • Investment treaty arbitrations under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties including the Energy Charter Treaty
  • International commercial arbitration
  • Free trade agreements
  • State immunity issues
  • International humanitarian and human rights law
  • International law on territorial and maritime boundaries, including the Law of the Sea
  • International trade sanctions and export control laws

An experienced advocate, Mr. Claypoole has successfully represented clients before the International Court of Justice, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, ICSID, ICC, LCIA, and UNCITRAL arbitral tribunals.

Leading legal publications, including Chambers UK and The Legal 500 have for several years consistently recognized Mr. Claypoole for his public international law and international arbitration work. Clients note his “impressive intellect” and “calmness of mind”.

Mr. Claypoole regularly publishes and speaks about international law, arbitration, as well as trade and finance sanctions. He has lectured on international boundary law at King’s College London since 2003.


Mr. Claypoole has acted as lead counsel in many significant disputes, including for:

  • Strabag, a major Austrian construction company, in securing a €100 million arbitral award (including the majority of its legal costs) in an ICSID Additional Facility arbitration against Libya brought under the Libya – Austria BIT (Strabag SE v. Libya)
  • Ipek Investment in a pending ICSID arbitration related to the expropriation of a major mining group in Turkey (Ipek Investment Limited v. Turkey)
  • The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in securing a successful settlement of an arbitration brought under the German – Saudi Arabia BIT (Hochtief Infrastrucuture GmbH vs. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
  • The Republic of Croatia in:
    > A pending ICSID arbitration related to a proposed real estate and tourism development in Croatia (Elitech v. Croatia)
    > An ICSID claim brought under the Belgium – Croatia BIT relating to a real estate and tourism development, which was successfully defeated (van Riet v. Republic of Croatia)
  • The State of Ukraine in:
    > A pending SCC arbitration conducted in which the claimants are claiming more than US$6 billion for alleged breaches of the ECT
    > A pending ICSID arbitration brought under the Dutch – Ukraine BIT related to an alleged investment in the aviation sector (Gilward Investments BV v. Ukraine)
    > An ICSID claim brought under the German – Ukraine BIT related to a petrochemicals project. The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims in their entirety, and awarded Ukraine 100% of its legal costs (GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine)
    > An UNCITRAL arbitration, which successfully settled, brought under the Greek – Ukraine BIT related to an investment in the ship-building industry (Laskaridis and others v. Ukraine);
    > A case concerning maritime delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) before the International Court of Justice
  • ArcelorMittal in obtaining a successful settlement of an ICSID arbitration against Egypt under the Belgium – Egypt BIT related to an investment in the steel industry (ArcelorMittal S.A. v. Egypt)
  • The Indorama Group in obtaining a significant cash settlement of an ICSID arbitration against Egypt under the UK – Egypt BIT related to an investment in the steel industry (Indorama International Finance Limited v. Egypt)
  • The Republic of North Macedonia in:
    > An ICSID claim, which was defeated, brought under the Dutch – Macedonia BIT related to an alleged investment in the finance sector; the tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, and awarded Ukraine 100% of its legal costs (Guardian Fiduciary Trust, Ltd, f/k/a Capital Conservator Savings & Loan, Ltd v. Republic of Macedonia)
    > An ICSID arbitration, obtaining a successful result, brought under the Swiss – Macedonia BIT related to an investment in an agricultural company; the tribunal rejected the claimant’s main claims and the vast majority of its damages claim (Swisslion DOO Skopje v. Republic of Macedonia)
  • The Government of Azerbaijan in an ICSID arbitration brought under a bilateral investment treaty in relation to the management of an electricity network (Barmek Holding A.S. v. Azerbaijan)
  • The Government of Pakistan in the jurisdictional phase of an ICSID arbitration brought under a bilateral investment treaty in relation to a construction project (Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Pakistan)
  • The Government of Yemen in an ICSID arbitration brought under a bilateral investment treaty in relation to a construction project (Desert Line Projects LLC v. Yemen)
  • Barbados on its claim to Outer Continental Shelf submitted to the UN CLCS
  • Indonesia in a case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) before the International Court of Justice

Thought Leadership

  • English Court of Appeal Overturns Decision that Guaidó Appointed Central Bank of Venezuela Board Controls Gold Reserves in England -  October 20, 2020
  • UK Adopts Sanctions to Target Belarus Government Officials -  October 01, 2020
  • US Trade Controls Against China Reach Supply Chain and End-Use Targets and Activities -  August 19, 2020
  • UK Introduces Sanctions Regime Targeting Global Human Rights Offenders -  July 10, 2020
  • Court of Appeal Excuses Non-Payment Arising From Secondary Sanctions Concerns -  July 08, 2020
  • UK Sanctions Authority Issues Record Penalty for Russia-Related Sanctions Violations -  April 02, 2020
  • Payment of Interest on Arbitration Award to Sanctioned Iranian Entity Prohibited -  October 31, 2019
  • US Secondary Sanctions Are a “Mandatory Provision of Law” in an English Contract -  October 02, 2019
  • US Expands Venezuela Sanctions: Three Key Questions -  August 12, 2019
  • US Commerce Department Imposes Broad Export Control Restrictions on Huawei -  May 23, 2019
  • OFAC’s 5 Essential Components of an Effective Sanctions Compliance Program  -  May 09, 2019
  • 10 Things to Know: US Allows Lawsuits Relating to “Trafficking” in Confiscated Property in Cuba  -  May 03, 2019
  • Top 10 Things to Know About Expanded US Sanctions on Iran -  November 06, 2018
  • EU Responds to the Snap-Back of US Sanctions Against Iran: Between a Rock and a Hard Place -  August 09, 2018
  • Top 10 Things to Know About President Trump’s Decision to Withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Agreement -  May 10, 2018
  • US Treasury Department’s New Designations Under the Russia-Related Sanctions: 3 Key Takeaways -  April 09, 2018
  • Включение новых лиц в санкционный список Казначейством США в рамках антироссийских санкций: три ключевых вывода -  April 09, 2018
  • European Court of Justice Rules on Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaty -  March 14, 2018
  • Казначейство США выпустило ожидаемый список российских лиц в рамках ранее принятого законодательства -  February 01, 2018
  • US Treasury Department Issues Anticipated List of Russian Parties, Pursuant to Recent Legislation -  January 31, 2018
  • Among Final Actions, Obama Administration Suspends Core of US Sanctions Against Sudan -  January 30, 2017
  • Prioritising Environmental Obligations in Future Trade Agreements  -  August 25, 2016
  • Managing Environment Risk in Trade Agreements Post-Brexit: What Can We Expect?  -  August 10, 2016
  • Six Months After Implementation of Iran Nuclear Agreement: Top 10 Observations  -  August 1, 2016
  • International Arbitration: Resolving a World of Disputes -  January 25, 2016
  • Top 10 Things to Know About the Implementation of the Iran Nuclear Agreement -  January 19, 2016
  • Movement Towards Implementation of Iran Nuclear Agreement Brings Limited Easing of Sanctions Into Focus -  October 29, 2015
  • Top 10 Things to Know About the Easing of Sanctions Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement -  July 16, 2015
  • International Arbitration Newsletter (July 2015) -  July 07, 2015
  • Top 10 Things to Know About the Future of Sanctions on Iran  -  April 27, 2015
  • Sanctions Update: Continuing Implementation of US Embargo of Crimea Region -  February 06, 2015
  • Managing Legal and Business Risks Under the Russia/Ukraine Sanctions -  November 06, 2014
  • Ukraine Crisis Update: US and EU Expand and Align Sanctions -  September 15, 2014
  • Ukraine Crisis Update: EU Enacts Sanctions Targeting Military Exports, Oil Sector and State-Owned Banks  -  July 31, 2014
  • Ukraine Crisis Update: US and EU Expand Sanctions, Restrict Certain Energy-Related Exports to Russia -  July 30, 2014
  • Ukraine Crisis Update: US Imposes New Sanctions on Major Russian Banks and Energy Companies -  July 18, 2014
  • International Arbitration Newsletter (June 2014) -  June 12, 2014
  • Ukraine Crisis Update: US and EU Expand Sanction Lists; US Imposes Export Restrictions -  April 29, 2014
  • Ukraine Crisis: US Expands Sanctions to Target Certain Russian Business Interests, Broadens Framework For Future Sanctions -  March 21, 2014
  • Ukraine Crisis Update: US and EU Expand Sanctions -  March 18, 2014
  • Ukraine Crisis: US and EU Respond with Targeted Sanctions -  March 07, 2014
  • Al-Mirsal Blog: Iran’s Nuclear Agreement Negotiations Ease Certain US and EU Sanctions -  February 13, 2014
  • Iran Nuclear Agreement Negotiation Advances Trigger Limited Easing of US and EU Sanctions -  January 28, 2014
  • Human Rights Obligations on Companies: Important Legal Developments -  December 19, 2013
  • Iran Nuclear Agreement: Potential Easing of US and EU Sanctions -  November 27, 2013
  • Non-Compliance with Human Rights Obligations Poses New Legal Risks for UK Companies -  November 05, 2013
  • International Arbitration Newsletter (October 2013) -  October 08, 2013
  • Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Primer -  July 29, 2013
  • New EU Regulation on Status of Extra-European Bilateral Investment Treaties -  February 06, 2013
  • Additional EU Sanctions on Iran -  October 29, 2012
  • The Law Applicable to Arbitration Agreements: Useful Guidance provided by the English Court of Appeal -  October 01, 2012
  • India's Tax & Telecom License Measures Concern Foreign Investors -  May 17, 2012
  • Growing Backlash Against International Extractive Companies? New Foreign Control Restrictions in Indonesia Follow on Heels of Similar Steps Elsewhere -  April 10, 2012
  • HICEE B.V. v The Slovak Republic: a Timely Reminder to Structure Foreign Investments Carefully to Obtain Protection under International Law -  December 13, 2011
  • US and EU Sanctions Continue to Evolve in Response to Events in the Middle East and North Africa -  September 1, 2011
  • UN Sanctions Against Libya Adopted by EU and UK -  March 10, 2011
"Charles Claypoole is described as 'one of the leading experts on investment treaty arbitrations in the London market.' He is commended by clients for his 'professionalism, dedication and calmness of mind'." Chambers UK 2020
Bar Qualification
  • England and Wales (Solicitor)
  • LL.M., Heidelberg University, 1997
  • B.V.C., Inns of Court School of Law, London, 1994
  • BA in Law and Social Anthropology, Cambridge University, 1992
  • Aerospace, Defense & Government Services
  • Energy & Infrastructure
  • Technology
  • French
  • German
  • International Arbitration
  • Litigation & Trial Practice
  • Public International Law
  • Export Controls, Economic Sanctions & Customs
  • Africa Practice