International Dispute Resolution

We resolve the world's most complex cross-border disputes with precision, dedication, and purpose.

Overview

AGG’s International Dispute Resolution practice represents sovereign states, state-owned entities, multinational companies, and private parties in complex cross-border disputes. Our team advises clients across the full spectrum of international dispute resolution, including investor-state arbitration, international commercial arbitration, state-to-state disputes, public international law, and recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in U.S. federal courts.

Members of our team have served as counsel and arbitrators before many of the world’s international tribunals and arbitral forums, including the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”), the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”), the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”), the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC”), and the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). AGG attorneys have also represented clients before the International Court of Justice, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, the U.N. Compensation Commission, and regional human rights bodies.

AGG attorneys successfully defended sovereign states in investor-state arbitrations resulting in jurisdictional victories, complete victories on jurisdictional challenges and liability, and reduction of awards by up to 90-96% of claimed damages. These have included states and state-owned entities across Latin America, Europe, Central and South Asia, and beyond, as well as private parties in international commercial arbitrations spanning the energy, natural resources, infrastructure, financial services, healthcare, waste management, and technology sectors.

We regularly advise clients on matters involving treaty interpretation, sovereign obligations, investment protection standards, arbitration strategy, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Our experience spans both public international law and international commercial disputes, allowing us to address the legal, regulatory, and practical considerations that often arise in complex cross-border matters.

Language Proficiency

AGG supports its clients with multilingual legal professionals, including proficiency in Dutch, French, German, Gujarati, Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Korean, Mandarin, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, and Spanish.

Experience

Investor-State Arbitration
  • Chevron/Texaco v. Ecuador, PCA CASE NO. 2009-23 (UNCITRAL) Lead counsel to the Republic of Ecuador in the damages phase of a landmark investment arbitration under the Ecuador-U.S. BIT arising from a massive environmental litigation. The outcome of the case is a 93.4% reduction in damages, following a liability phase handled by another firm.*
  • Sanitek v. Armenia (ICSID) Co-lead counsel to the Republic of Armenia under the Lebanon-Armenia and Canada-Armenia BITs relating to claims under two waste management concessions.*
  • Niko Resources v. Bangladesh (ICSID) Counsel to Bangladesh and its state entities in a dispute concerning the causes and impacts of two gas blowouts. Secured environmental and gas loss compensation for Bangladesh.*
  • Ping An v. Kingdom of Belgium (ICSID) Counsel to Belgium in ICSID arbitration under the China-Belgium BIT arising from measures in the financial services sector. Secured full victory on jurisdiction.*
  • Chevron Bangladesh Block Twelve, Ltd. and Chevron Bangladesh Blocks Thirteen and Fourteen, Ltd. v. People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation Counsel to Bangladesh state entities in ICSID arbitration (until February 2026).*
  • Amorrortu v. Peru (UNCITRAL) Lead counsel until mid-2021 in arbitration under the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (“USPTPA”) relating to a highway construction project. Dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.*
  • Merck Sharpe & Dohme v. Ecuador (UNCITRAL) Counsel to the Republic of Ecuador in arbitration under the Ecuador-U.S. BIT arising from the alleged treatment of a foreign investor by the Ecuadorean judiciary.*
  • City-State NV v. Ukraine (ICSID) Lead counsel in ICSID arbitration under the Ukraine-Netherlands investment promotion and protection treaty relating to the financial sector. The claimants were awarded a fraction of the damages claimed.*
  • Louis Dreyfus Armateurs v. India (UNCITRAL) Lead counsel to the Republic of India under the India-France BIT concerning the supply and operation of cargo handling equipment in West Bengal. All claims were dismissed on the merits, delivering to India its first-ever victory in an investor-state arbitration. The tribunal awarded India $7.2 million in costs.*
  • Murphy Exploration v. Ecuador (II) (UNCITRAL) Lead counsel to the Republic of Ecuador in arbitration under the Ecuador-U.S. BIT arising from changes in domestic legislation pertaining to the exploitation of oil resources. Secured a 96% reduction in claimed damages.*
  • Repsol YPF v. Ecuador (ICSID) Lead counsel to the Republic of Ecuador in arbitration under the Ecuador-U.S. BIT arising from changes in domestic legislation pertaining to the exploitation of oil resources. The case concluded with a favorable settlement.*
  • Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v. Republic of Ecuador (I) (ICSID) Lead counsel to the Republic of Ecuador in arbitration under the Ecuador-U.S. BIT arising from changes in domestic legislation pertaining to the exploitation of oil resources. Dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction.*
  • Slovak Gas Holding BV, GDF International SAS & E.ON Ruhrgas International GmbH v. the Slovak Republic Co-lead counsel for the Slovak Republic in an ICSID arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from the regulation of natural gas distribution. Resulted in a settlement favorable to the Slovak Republic. *
  • Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic Lead counsel to Slovakia on intra-EU law issues in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Slovak Republic-Netherlands BIT arising from alleged measures in the health insurance sector. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the investor’s claims. The tribunal also awarded Slovakia €1.35 million in costs.*
  • European American Investment Bank AG (Austria) v. The Slovak Republic Co-lead counsel to Slovakia in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Slovak Republic-Austria bilateral investment treaty arising from changes in the Slovak health insurance sector. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the investor’s claims. The tribunal also awarded Slovakia €1.6 million in costs.*
  • Saint Mary’s VCNA, LLC v. Canada External reader for Canada in a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration arising from a proposed development of a quarry in Ontario.*
  • Detroit Int’l Bridge Co. v. Canada External reader for Canada in a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration arising from the concession for the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario.*
  • Anglo American v. Venezuela (ICSID Additional Facility) Counsel to Venezuela against a UK mining company concerning termination of a nickel concession.*
  • Gold Reserve v. Venezuela (ICSID Additional Facility) Counsel to Venezuela against a Canadian gold mining company concerning gold concessions and environmental rights.*
  • Vannessa Ventures v. Venezuela (ICSID Additional Facility) Counsel to Venezuela under the Canada-Venezuela BIT arising from cancellation of a gold mining contract. Tribunal found Venezuela not liable.*
  • Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Annulment) Counsel in stay proceedings in the defense of award enforcement efforts.*
  • Chevron/Texaco v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2007-02/AA277 (UNCITRAL) Lead counsel in a PCA/UNCITRAL arbitration brought by Chevron Corp. alleging denial of justice under seven Ecuadorian court decisions in contract disputes, leading to a 96% reduction in claimed damages.*
  • Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States (UNCITRAL) Represented the United States against a Canadian mining company alleging regulatory expropriation under federal and California laws.*
  • Canadian Lumber Producers v. United States (UNCITRAL, four cases) Represented the United States in four successful UNCITRAL proceedings, including one first-ever consolidated case, brought by Canadian lumber producers (Canfor, Tembec and Terminal Forest Products) challenging the application of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws.*
  • Methanex v. United States (UNCITRAL) Represented the United States in successful defense on the merits against a Canadian methanol company regarding legislation banning use of a methanol-based gasoline additive.*
  • Loewen v. United States (ICSID AF) Represented the United States in successful defense on the merits and jurisdiction in a path-setting case arising from allegations of denial of justice.*
  • Canadian Cattle Producers v. United States (UNCITRAL) Represented the United States in successful defense against 109 Canadian cattle producers challenging the closure of the U.S.-Canada border following a mad cow disease outbreak.*
  • Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd v. United States (UNCITRAL) Represented the United States in successful defense on the merits against a Canadian tobacco company’s claim that the U.S. master tobacco settlement violated the expropriation and national treatment provisions of NAFTA.*
  • Mondev v. United States (ICSID AF) Represented the United States in successful defense on the merits in a case brought by a commercial real estate development company alleging expropriation.*
  • ADF v. United States (ICSID AF) Represented the United States in successful defense on the merits in ICSID Additional Facility proceedings against a construction subcontractor alleging that national content requirements violated the NAFTA Investment Chapter.*
  • Protiva v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented claimant heirs in successful arbitration claims for the expropriation of a Tehran office building.*
  • Ghaffari Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a U.S. principal in successful arbitration claims for the expropriation of his ownership interest in an architectural and engineering firm.*
  • Birnbaum Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a U.S. principal in successful arbitration claims for the expropriation of his ownership interest in an architectural and engineering firm.*
  • Baker International v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented U.S. oil supply company in a successful arbitration claim for the expropriation of oilfield assets in Iran.*
  • Computer Sciences Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a U.S. technology firm in a successful arbitration claim for the expropriation of rights under a computer services contract.*
  • Development & Resources Corp. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a U.S. development company in a successful arbitration claim for the expropriation of a project development contract.*
  • Howard, Needles, Tammen, & Bergendoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a major U.S. construction company in a successful arbitration claim for the expropriation of a major highway construction assets.*
  • Bendone DiRossi v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a U.S. uniform manufacturing company in a successful arbitration claim for the expropriation of rights under a military supply contract.*

*Representative matters handled while practicing at another law firm.

    COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION
    • Service as an arbitrator in cases administered by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”), the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (“MKAS”), the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), the American Health Lawyers Association (“AHLA”) Dispute Resolution Service, and other institutions, as well as numerous ad hoc proceedings, including cases governed by the UNCITRAL Rules.
    • Successfully represented an Indian software company in international arbitration proceedings seated in Helsinki, Finland, under the UNCITRAL Rules for international arbitration. The tribunal granted AGG’s client all the relief it requested, including interest and attorneys’ fees.
    • Obtained a complete defense award on behalf of a U.S. food distributor in an arbitration seated in Paris, France, and administered by the ICC. AGG’s client also recovered its attorneys’ fees against the claimant (a Belgian chocolate manufacturer).
    • Represented an insurer in a coverage dispute arising from the turnkey sale of an oil refinery to a Chinese enterprise. The arbitration award (rendered under the ICDR Rules) not only upheld the coverage denial but also included attorneys’ fees.
    • Lead counsel for Austrian client in successful application in federal district court under international discovery statute (28 U.S. C. § 1782) to obtain critical financial documents from U.S. affiliates of complex worldwide group of Austrian manufacturing company affiliates. The documents were for use in a series of proceedings in the Republic of Austria, including disputes related to share ownership. AGG’s business litigation attorneys worked with its cross-border and German language teams to develop the winning approach, in which the court granted AGG’s application, as well as a subsequent heavily contested motion to compel.
    • Obtained an interim award on behalf of a Chinese company from an emergency arbitrator appointed under Article 37 of the ICDR Rules. The award enjoined the disposition of property by the respondent and successfully resolved a multimillion-dollar controversy between an international manufacturer and an American distributor.
    • Represented a Ukrainian energy supply company in award recognition proceedings against the Republic of Moldova arising out of the breach of Moldova’s obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty.
    • Counsel for Chinese-owned business entities in complex international ownership, intellectual property, and unfair competition proceeding under the JAMS Arbitration Rules, including preparation of direct and cross-examination of Chinese-language witnesses and principals.
    • Represented an U.S. global logistics company in a JAMS International arbitration proceeding involving a dispute over outstanding fees and termination of its relationship with its Ecuadorian affiliate. The matter was resolved by a consent award granting substantially all the relief sought by our client.
    • Successfully represented a Spanish global travel technology company in award recognition proceedings against an Indian-owned software company. AGG collected attorneys’ fees from the opposing party.
    • Successfully represented a Russian company in proceedings under the New York Convention in Seattle, Washington, to obtain the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award rendered by the Moscow-based International Commercial Arbitration Court (“MKAS”). AGG also collected the resulting judgment, notwithstanding bankruptcy filing by the respondent that was prompted by the enforcement order.
    • Defended multinational accounting firm in arbitration before the German Arbitration Institute (“DIS”) through final hearing, resulting in favorable award to client on all of claimant’s claims.
    • Obtained favorable judgment as lead counsel in ad hoc international arbitration involving the State of Texas’ arbitration statutes. Defended as lead counsel a global biotech corporation in breach of joint venture partnership and technology license agreement against one of the major global stem cell development corporations. Secured favorable arbitral award for client by recovering full intellectual property ownership of client’s core biomedical technology and obtaining new favorable technology license terms.
    • Successfully represented a top five global shipbuilding company in international arbitration before the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) for breach of shipbuilding contracts involving the manufacture of commercial vessels. Issues involved compliance with shipbuilding contract requirements, proper invocation of termination clauses, and issues pertaining to technology licenses applied in the building of vessels. Resolved matters relating to the financing of the construction of vessels and worked with ship financing experts to arbitrate all aspects of a shipbuilding project, including negotiation of ship finance agreements, financing mechanisms, and details of shipbuilding agreements based on industry standards.
    • Represented an U.S. global logistics company in a JAMS International arbitration proceeding involving a dispute over outstanding fees and termination of its relationship with its Ecuadorian affiliate. The matter was resolved by a consent award granting substantially all the relief sought by our client.
    • Successfully represented a Spanish global travel technology company in award recognition proceedings against an Indian-owned software company. AGG collected attorneys’ fees from the opposing party.
    • Successfully represented a Russian company in proceedings under the New York Convention in Seattle, Washington, to obtain the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award rendered by the Moscow-based International Commercial Arbitration Court (“MKAS”). AGG also collected the resulting judgment, notwithstanding bankruptcy filing by the respondent that was prompted by the enforcement order.
    • Defended multinational accounting firm in arbitration before the German Arbitration Institute (“DIS”) through final hearing, resulting in favorable award to client on all of claimant’s claims.
    • Obtained favorable judgment as lead counsel in ad hoc international arbitration involving the State of Texas’ arbitration statutes. Defended as lead counsel a global biotech corporation in breach of joint venture partnership and technology license agreement against one of the major global stem cell development corporations. Secured favorable arbitral award for client by recovering full intellectual property ownership of client’s core biomedical technology and obtaining new favorable technology license terms.
    • Successfully represented a top five global shipbuilding company in international arbitration before the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) for breach of shipbuilding contracts involving the manufacture of commercial vessels. Issues involved compliance with shipbuilding contract requirements, proper invocation of termination clauses, and issues pertaining to technology licenses applied in the building of vessels. Resolved matters relating to the financing of the construction of vessels and worked with ship financing experts to arbitrate all aspects of a shipbuilding project, including negotiation of ship finance agreements, financing mechanisms, and details of shipbuilding agreements based on industry standards.

      News & Insights

      View More

      Related Services

      Primary Contacts
      View All Professionals