"Expert in the law, but what makes him such a brilliant lawyer is that he provides us with pragmatic advice that we can apply to our operations."
Chambers UK 2025
"Encyclopedic understanding of sanction regimes and has experience from managing numerous sanctions-related cases."
Chambers UK 2025
"He has an unparalleled knowledge and is the go-to partner for the subtlety of his legal advice and his strategic skills."
The Legal 500 UK 2025
"One of the London market’s most knowledgeable and experienced public international law practitioners."
The Legal 500 UK 2025
"A strong choice of advocate for complex public international law matters and trade/WTO law issues.
Chambers Global 2024
"Notable experience advising sovereign states and multinational companies on matters concerning human rights, self-determination and sanctions."
Chambers Global 2024
"He is able to analyse and work through complex expert questions quickly, even off the cuff. His level of sophistication is second to none."
Chambers UK 2024
"He is the perfect advocate to have on your case."
Chambers UK 2024
Band 1 – Public International Law
Chambers UK 2025
Hall of Fame – Public International Law
The Legal 500 UK 2025
Profile
Charles Claypoole, a leading arbitration and international trade law practitioner, advises governments and investors on public international law, with a particular focus on investment treaty arbitration and trade sanctions. 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.
Charles 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, Charles 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 Charles for his public international law and international arbitration work. Clients note his “impressive intellect” and “calmness of mind.”
Charles 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.
Experience
Charles has advised on numerous high-profile and significant disputes, and is one of the leading lawyers worldwide with expertise in international law, trade sanctions, and international arbitration.
Recent mandates including advising:
UniCredit Bank GmbH in securing from the UK Supreme Court a mandatory anti-suit injunction requiring a Gazprom joint venture to discontinue proceedings before the Russian courts seeking recovery of €448 million under a series of English law-governed bonds that provided for ICC arbitration in Paris. This landmark decision was the first reported instance of the English courts issuing an anti-suit injunction in support of a foreign arbitration agreement (UniCredit Bank GmbH v. RusChemAlliance LLC, Case ID: 2024/0015)
A European industrial company in several separate VIAC arbitrations against a Russian entity on issues related to compliance with EU sanctions
A European company in an ICC arbitration against a Swiss company related to compliance with EU sanctions, including the scope of Article 10 of Regulation 269/2014
Charles has also acted as lead counsel in many significant arbitrations, 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), and in defeating Libya's attempts to challenge the award in Washington, D.C.
The Republic of Kazakhstan in a resubmitted arbitration related to a mining concession (Alhambra Cooperatief U.A. v Kazakhstan)
Ipek Investment in an 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 Infrastructure GmbH v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
The Republic of Croatia in:
An ICSID arbitration brought under the Netherlands – Croatia BIT related to a proposed real estate and tourism development in Croatia, which was successfully defeated with all of the claimants’ claims being dismissed (Elitech v. Croatia)
A pending ICSID arbitration brought under the Israel – Croatia BIT related to a proposed real estate and tourism development in Croatia (Frenkel v. Croatia)
An ICSID claim brought under the Belgium – Croatia BIT related to a real estate and tourism development, which was successfully defeated (van Riet v. Republic of Croatia)
The State of Ukraine in:
An SCC arbitration in which the claimants claimed more than US$6 billion for alleged breaches of the ECT (Littop Enterprises Limited and others v. Ukraine); the tribunal unanimously dismissed the case, which was the largest ever brought against Ukraine, for lack of jurisdiction
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
Charles is a highly sought-after trade sanctions specialist, having advised on some of the most complex and challenging sanctions matters in recent years, including advising Intesa Sanpaolo on providing a €5.2 billion loan to finance the acquisition of a 19.5% stake in Rosneft, advising Lord Barker, the chairman of En+ Group plc, on its successful removal from the SDN list, and in securing various OFSI and other sanctions licenses, including the authorization of TP Global to acquire the assets of the Truphone business.
Qualifications
Bar Qualification
England and Wales (Solicitor)
Education
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
Latham litigation team recognized for obtaining a landmark win at the UK Supreme Court for UniCredit, marking the first reported case of the English Courts issuing an injunction to support a foreign-seat arbitration.
The EU has issued its eighth “package” of sanctions measures on Russia. Meanwhile, US agencies have issued guidance on “secondary” sanctions enforcement, designated additional SDNs, and restricted further exports to Russia — including exports of quantum computing services.
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.